Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> 61% of voters want Turnbull.
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1338773899

Message started by skippy. on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:38am

Title: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:38am
It's now official. 61% of ALL voters would prefer Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberals. A lot of us here have been saying that for a long time, now it is confirmed 61% of voters agree. So its only the rusted on far right extremists that want Abbott.






Quote:
Today's poll results also brought some bad news for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

The Nielsen poll finds that former leader and communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull is preferred as Coalition leader by 61 per cent of voters, compared with 34 per cent for Mr Abbott.

Mr Abbott's personal approval also fell 5 points to 39 per cent, while his disapproval rose 5 points to 57 per cent.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-will-absolutely-stay-as-leader-20120604-1zqth.html#ixzz1wmgWkNjy

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:40am
I wonder how many of the 61% are Labor voters hoping Turnbull comeback in to save Gillard?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:40am
Malcolm Turnbull would be an excellent PM.

He and I are at opposite ends of the scale on the Republic/Monarchy issue - but his economic policies and views on the way forward for the country and in sync with mine.

He's a market capitalist with a social safety net kind of guy.
Like I am.

If we can park the Monarchy issue to one side, Turnbull get's my full support.

I cannot warm to Abbott.
I think he is an excellent Opposition attack dog - one of the best - but I just don't see him as a PM.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:41am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:40am:
I wonder how many of the 61% are Labor voters hoping Turnbull comeback in to save Gillard?


I would be one of the 61% Macca.
I have never voted for Labor and I wouldn't want anyone to save Gillard.

I hope she does stay on to go to the polls.
I think politicians should feel the wrath of the people when they so blatantly disregard their wishes as she has done with a carbon tax.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by john_g on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:43am
Yes, sure do. As I have said time and again, I will most likely be donkey voting at the next election. There's no way I'm voting Green or Labor, but I don't see myself voting for an Abbott-led Coalition, either. A shame, because I always really valued my vote.

Put Turnbull there, and the Libs will be getting my vote, 100%.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by cods on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:45am
62% prefer rudd STILL

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:45am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:41am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:40am:
I wonder how many of the 61% are Labor voters hoping Turnbull comeback in to save Gillard?


I would be one of the 61% Macca.
I have never voted for Labor and I wouldn't want anyone to save Gillard.

I hope she does stay on to go to the polls.
I think politicians should feel the wrath of the people when they so blatantly disregard their wishes as she has done with a carbon tax.


I have always favored Turnbull until he started to implement the Carbon Tax - which is why he was challenged by Abbott.

If the LIBs had a vote today - I doubt Turnbull would get the numbers.

The whole LIB party is now united behind this anti-carbon tax stance which resulted in the 57/43 TPP.

Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by john_g on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:46am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:45am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:41am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:40am:
I wonder how many of the 61% are Labor voters hoping Turnbull comeback in to save Gillard?


I would be one of the 61% Macca.
I have never voted for Labor and I wouldn't want anyone to save Gillard.

I hope she does stay on to go to the polls.
I think politicians should feel the wrath of the people when they so blatantly disregard their wishes as she has done with a carbon tax.


I have always favored Turnbull until he started to implement the Carbon Tax - which is why he was challenged by Abbott.

If the LIBs had a vote today - I doubt Turnbull would get the numbers.

The whole LIB party is now united behind this anti-carbon tax stance which resulted in the 57/43 TPP.

Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.


No, he's not. He is in favour of an ETS, not a carbon tax. He voted against it, Maqqa.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:47am
But to be fair Turnbull is not in favour of a carbon tax either.

He favours a trading scheme which would see the price way down around what the EU has?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by BlOoDy RiPpEr on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:48am

cods wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:45am:
62% prefer rudd STILL

I thought it was 92% still want Rudd over Gillard.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:48am

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:46am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:45am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:41am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:40am:
I wonder how many of the 61% are Labor voters hoping Turnbull comeback in to save Gillard?


I would be one of the 61% Macca.
I have never voted for Labor and I wouldn't want anyone to save Gillard.

I hope she does stay on to go to the polls.
I think politicians should feel the wrath of the people when they so blatantly disregard their wishes as she has done with a carbon tax.


I have always favored Turnbull until he started to implement the Carbon Tax - which is why he was challenged by Abbott.

If the LIBs had a vote today - I doubt Turnbull would get the numbers.

The whole LIB party is now united behind this anti-carbon tax stance which resulted in the 57/43 TPP.

Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.


No, he's not. He is in favour of an ETS, not a carbon tax. He voted against it, Maqqa.



Thanks john - many on the left do not understand the difference especially when it impacts their political allegiance

The carbon tax will eventually transition to an ETS anyway.

But Labor will not care - they will seize the opportunity and paint Turnbull with the same brush

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:47am:
But to be fair Turnbull is not in favour of a carbon tax either.

He favours a trading scheme which would see the price way down around what the EU has?



yes - but most Australian wouldn't know this.

Labor will seize upon this ignorance and use it to tell Australians that the LIBs have voted in a leader that supports a Carbon Tax

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by john_g on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:48am:

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:46am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:45am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:41am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:40am:
I wonder how many of the 61% are Labor voters hoping Turnbull comeback in to save Gillard?


I would be one of the 61% Macca.
I have never voted for Labor and I wouldn't want anyone to save Gillard.

I hope she does stay on to go to the polls.
I think politicians should feel the wrath of the people when they so blatantly disregard their wishes as she has done with a carbon tax.


I have always favored Turnbull until he started to implement the Carbon Tax - which is why he was challenged by Abbott.

If the LIBs had a vote today - I doubt Turnbull would get the numbers.

The whole LIB party is now united behind this anti-carbon tax stance which resulted in the 57/43 TPP.

Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.


No, he's not. He is in favour of an ETS, not a carbon tax. He voted against it, Maqqa.



Thanks john - many on the left do not understand the difference especially when it impacts their political allegiance

The carbon tax will eventually transition to an ETS anyway.

But Labor will not care - they will seize the opportunity and paint Turnbull with the same brush


Hopefully the Libs are in, and repeal it, before it has the chance to go to an ETS.

If Labor are re-elected, the carbon tax won't transition until 2015.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Gist on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:51am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:40am:
I wonder how many of the 61% are Labor voters hoping Turnbull comeback in to save Gillard?


That's a good thing for you isn't it? If you want to win outright, don't you NEED votes from people who voted Labor last time?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:52am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:47am:
But to be fair Turnbull is not in favour of a carbon tax either.

He favours a trading scheme which would see the price way down around what the EU has?



yes - but most Australian wouldn't know this.


Most Australians are as thick as horse-sh*t Macca.
I wouldn't go with that line mate.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by john_g on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:53am

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.


Technically, that's not true, skip. Before the leadership challenge earlier in the year, there were two polls conducted; one for if Gillard stayed, the other for if Rudd were re-instated. The first had the Coalition leading 54-46, the second a much closer 51-49.

I don't think that Labor can win, irrespective of leader or anything else, unless they repeal the carbon tax. A change of leader, particularly Rudd, however, could/would make it much closer.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:56am

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.



You are not that stupid skippy

The next election will be on the poisonous Carbon Tax. Getting rid off Gillard and keeping the Carbon Tax is like not washing the poison chalice and giving it to the next person.

Turnbull is behind the ETS. Which will be an evolved version of the Carbon Tax in 2015 under Labor.

Putting in Turnbull means the ALP can say that the LIBs support the Carbon Tax

As I said - the LIBs are now united behind the anti-carbon tax stance. Which has delivered them the polls results of 57/43.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:56am

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:53am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.


Technically, that's not true, skip. Before the leadership challenge earlier in the year, there were two polls conducted; one for if Gillard stayed, the other for if Rudd were re-instated. The first had the Coalition leading 54-46, the second a much closer 51-49.

I don't think that Labor can win, irrespective of leader or anything else, unless they repeal the carbon tax. A change of leader, particularly Rudd, however, could/would make it much closer.

That poll you mention was a HYPOTHETICAL, in ALL the polls while Rudd was leader he NEVER lost a preferred PM or TPP.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by john_g on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:58am

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:56am:

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:53am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.


Technically, that's not true, skip. Before the leadership challenge earlier in the year, there were two polls conducted; one for if Gillard stayed, the other for if Rudd were re-instated. The first had the Coalition leading 54-46, the second a much closer 51-49.

I don't think that Labor can win, irrespective of leader or anything else, unless they repeal the carbon tax. A change of leader, particularly Rudd, however, could/would make it much closer.

That poll you mention was a HYPOTHETICAL, in ALL the polls while Rudd was leader he NEVER lost a preferred PM or TPP.


Of course, just playing devil's advocate.  ;)

I really want Turnbull to return, too, as much as you., but just don't see it happening.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:58am

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:56am:

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:53am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.


Technically, that's not true, skip. Before the leadership challenge earlier in the year, there were two polls conducted; one for if Gillard stayed, the other for if Rudd were re-instated. The first had the Coalition leading 54-46, the second a much closer 51-49.

I don't think that Labor can win, irrespective of leader or anything else, unless they repeal the carbon tax. A change of leader, particularly Rudd, however, could/would make it much closer.

That poll you mention was a HYPOTHETICAL, in ALL the polls while Rudd was leader he NEVER lost a preferred PM or TPP.



Rudd was dumped when his polls were heading south.

The thing was skippy that I would argue a different PM would still be there.
Problem was that Rudd was so disliked inside of his own party, that he only needed a hint of polling drop and they were all over him to cut him loose and settle some scores.

Gillard's polling has been beyond atrocious but because she is popular within her party (but she struggles massively to translate to the populace) she holds on.

Rudd is the better option for me than Gillard and Abbott but that choice is unpalatable to many inside of the ALP.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:02pm

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:56am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.



You are not that stupid skippy

The next election will be on the poisonous Carbon Tax. Getting rid off Gillard and keeping the Carbon Tax is like not washing the poison chalice and giving it to the next person.

Turnbull is behind the ETS. Which will be an evolved version of the Carbon Tax in 2015 under Labor.

Putting in Turnbull means the ALP can say that the LIBs support the Carbon Tax

As I said - the LIBs are now united behind the anti-carbon tax stance. Which has delivered them the polls results of 57/43.

Before Abbotts SCARE and PROPAGANDA campaign a price on carbon was accepted and welcome by 60 % of Australians, now we are pandering to the earth is flat lobby. Turnbull as leader will not lose the Libs votes, it will GAIN them votes.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by john_g on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:02pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:58am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:56am:

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:53am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.


Technically, that's not true, skip. Before the leadership challenge earlier in the year, there were two polls conducted; one for if Gillard stayed, the other for if Rudd were re-instated. The first had the Coalition leading 54-46, the second a much closer 51-49.

I don't think that Labor can win, irrespective of leader or anything else, unless they repeal the carbon tax. A change of leader, particularly Rudd, however, could/would make it much closer.

That poll you mention was a HYPOTHETICAL, in ALL the polls while Rudd was leader he NEVER lost a preferred PM or TPP.



Rudd was dumped when his polls were heading south.

The thing was skippy that I would argue a different PM would still be there.
Problem was that Rudd was so disliked inside of his own party, that he only needed a hint of polling drop and they were all over him to cut him loose and settle some scores.

Gillard's polling has been beyond atrocious but because she is popular within her party (but she struggles massively to translate to the populace) she holds on.

Rudd is the better option for me than Gillard and Abbott but that choice is unpalatable to many inside of the ALP.


Which would you prefer, though, Andrei?:

Scenario 1 - Rudd/ALP - with carbon tax.
Scenario 2 - Abbott/LNP - without carbon tax.

I do find it weird how Gillard is so popular with the party, and so loathed by the people, and Rudd is exactly the opposite.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:04pm

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:56am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.



You are not that stupid skippy

The next election will be on the poisonous Carbon Tax. Getting rid off Gillard and keeping the Carbon Tax is like not washing the poison chalice and giving it to the next person.

Turnbull is behind the ETS. Which will be an evolved version of the Carbon Tax in 2015 under Labor.

Putting in Turnbull means the ALP can say that the LIBs support the Carbon Tax

As I said - the LIBs are now united behind the anti-carbon tax stance. Which has delivered them the polls results of 57/43.

Before Abbotts SCARE and PROPAGANDA campaign a price on carbon was accepted and welcome by 60 % of Australians, now we are pandering to the earth is flat lobby. Turnbull as leader will not lose the Libs votes, it will GAIN them votes.



Carbon Tax is more poisonous to the ALP than Workchoices was to the LIBs

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:05pm

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:56am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.



You are not that stupid skippy

The next election will be on the poisonous Carbon Tax. Getting rid off Gillard and keeping the Carbon Tax is like not washing the poison chalice and giving it to the next person.

Turnbull is behind the ETS. Which will be an evolved version of the Carbon Tax in 2015 under Labor.

Putting in Turnbull means the ALP can say that the LIBs support the Carbon Tax

As I said - the LIBs are now united behind the anti-carbon tax stance. Which has delivered them the polls results of 57/43.



Nobody is going to get rid of it. They will @ most rename it to something else.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:05pm

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:58am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:56am:

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:53am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.


Technically, that's not true, skip. Before the leadership challenge earlier in the year, there were two polls conducted; one for if Gillard stayed, the other for if Rudd were re-instated. The first had the Coalition leading 54-46, the second a much closer 51-49.

I don't think that Labor can win, irrespective of leader or anything else, unless they repeal the carbon tax. A change of leader, particularly Rudd, however, could/would make it much closer.

That poll you mention was a HYPOTHETICAL, in ALL the polls while Rudd was leader he NEVER lost a preferred PM or TPP.



Rudd was dumped when his polls were heading south.

The thing was skippy that I would argue a different PM would still be there.
Problem was that Rudd was so disliked inside of his own party, that he only needed a hint of polling drop and they were all over him to cut him loose and settle some scores.

Gillard's polling has been beyond atrocious but because she is popular within her party (but she struggles massively to translate to the populace) she holds on.

Rudd is the better option for me than Gillard and Abbott but that choice is unpalatable to many inside of the ALP.


Which would you prefer, though, Andrei?:

Scenario 1 - Rudd/ALP - with carbon tax.
Scenario 2 - Abbott/LNP - without carbon tax.

I do find it weird how Gillard is so popular with the party, and so loathed by the people, and Rudd is exactly the opposite.


Ideally it would be Turnbull/LNP - without the carbon tax.

But we know Turnbull's stance on the ETS so it ain't gunna happen.

I think Hockey will emerge as the other candidate

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:06pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:58am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:56am:

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:53am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.


Technically, that's not true, skip. Before the leadership challenge earlier in the year, there were two polls conducted; one for if Gillard stayed, the other for if Rudd were re-instated. The first had the Coalition leading 54-46, the second a much closer 51-49.

I don't think that Labor can win, irrespective of leader or anything else, unless they repeal the carbon tax. A change of leader, particularly Rudd, however, could/would make it much closer.

That poll you mention was a HYPOTHETICAL, in ALL the polls while Rudd was leader he NEVER lost a preferred PM or TPP.



Rudd was dumped when his polls were heading south.

The thing was skippy that I would argue a different PM would still be there.
Problem was that Rudd was so disliked inside of his own party, that he only needed a hint of polling drop and they were all over him to cut him loose and settle some scores.

Gillard's polling has been beyond atrocious but because she is popular within her party (but she struggles massively to translate to the populace) she holds on.

Rudd is the better option for me than Gillard and Abbott but that choice is unpalatable to many inside of the ALP.

True he was dumped when his polls were heading south, but they never hit as low as Abbott. You're preaching to the converted,Andrei, I would vote for Turnbull over Rudd anyday. My argument is if Gillard is dumped for Rudd, thats the best chance Australia has for a return to Turnbull. I say the best chance for Australia because I believe there is Turnbull and clean air between any other worthy of the PM ship.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:07pm
I think Labor's polling would be nowhere near where they are even with a carbon tax - if Rudd was there.

Rudd is an excellent communicator and he strikes chords that Gillard clearly cannot.

He sells ideas. He sells policies.
Gillard is just, well, unable to.

She struggles with the people. She comes across as cold, she comes across as aloof, she comes across as unable to seem that she knows the problems families face.

It's harsh I know, but an unsaid issue is that she has never had a family, never married, never had children.

Aussie families would look at Rudd, a married man with children and know he knows what he is talking about when he speaks of family life.
Plenty of people would hear Gillard say the same thing and know she is reading from a script she has been handed.

To say she is wooden is not quite doing the wood justice.

Why Labor MPs would persist with her is beyond me.
They are literally dancing into their political graves and Australia is heading to an Abbott Australia without him actually needing to do anything.

He is watching a party slit its own throat.
Much like Newman did in QLD.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Gist on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:08pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:58am:
Rudd was dumped when his polls were heading south.


Not quite. Rudd was dumped when his polls were heading south AND he became increasingly dysfunctional. With an election looming he was fast turning into a gibbering wide-eyed idiot who couldn't move in any direction. Couldn't make a decision and wouldn't allow anyone else to make one.

That's why the party dumped him and that's why he had next to no support when it did finally come to a vote this year.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:10pm

Gist wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:58am:
Rudd was dumped when his polls were heading south.


Not quite. Rudd was dumped when his polls were heading south AND he became increasingly dysfunctional. With an election looming he was fast turning into a gibbering wide-eyed idiot who couldn't move in any direction. Couldn't make a decision and wouldn't allow anyone else to make one.

That's why the party dumped him and that's why he had next to no support when it did finally come to a vote this year.



He was already dysfunctional - sandwiches, hair drier etc

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:16pm
The longer the Libs ignore 61% of voters want Turnbull and not Abbott the longer Labor are in the game. If I were Labor i'd hold on until a month before an election, dump Gillard for the people's choice and watch the libs lose the unlosable election. Though I doubt Labor are that smart.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by john_g on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:17pm

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:58am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:56am:

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:53am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:50am:

Quote:
Given Turnbull's pro-carbon tax stance there's no way he will be back in. It will give Labor a platform to launch their next election.

Never say he wont be back. If Gillard is dumped, and I think she will be, so will Abbott be. Because no matter what spin you put on it, Rudd will beat Abbott,and the Libs know it. Turnbull will be the Libs only choice, IF they want government. Abbott NEVER beat Rudd as preferred PM and the Libs were NEVER ahead on TPP under Rudd, thems the facts.


Technically, that's not true, skip. Before the leadership challenge earlier in the year, there were two polls conducted; one for if Gillard stayed, the other for if Rudd were re-instated. The first had the Coalition leading 54-46, the second a much closer 51-49.

I don't think that Labor can win, irrespective of leader or anything else, unless they repeal the carbon tax. A change of leader, particularly Rudd, however, could/would make it much closer.

That poll you mention was a HYPOTHETICAL, in ALL the polls while Rudd was leader he NEVER lost a preferred PM or TPP.



Rudd was dumped when his polls were heading south.

The thing was skippy that I would argue a different PM would still be there.
Problem was that Rudd was so disliked inside of his own party, that he only needed a hint of polling drop and they were all over him to cut him loose and settle some scores.

Gillard's polling has been beyond atrocious but because she is popular within her party (but she struggles massively to translate to the populace) she holds on.

Rudd is the better option for me than Gillard and Abbott but that choice is unpalatable to many inside of the ALP.


Which would you prefer, though, Andrei?:

Scenario 1 - Rudd/ALP - with carbon tax.
Scenario 2 - Abbott/LNP - without carbon tax.

I do find it weird how Gillard is so popular with the party, and so loathed by the people, and Rudd is exactly the opposite.


Ideally it would be Turnbull/LNP - without the carbon tax.

But we know Turnbull's stance on the ETS so it ain't gunna happen.

I think Hockey will emerge as the other candidate


So, what's your order, Maqqa? I always thought that you were an Abbott fan, but this suggests otherwise.

For me, it's Turnbull>Abbott>Hockey.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Gist on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:18pm

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:10pm:
He was already dysfunctional - sandwiches, hair drier etc


All of which could be forgiven as long as things were basically hanging together in big picture terms. Towards the end though, they weren't.

The entire caucus has said pretty clearly that they don't want to go back to that - it was a record vote against Rudd just a few months ago. I think anyone trumpeting a return of the Ruddster is either projecting their own desires or just plain ignorant of the facts.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by john_g on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:19pm

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:16pm:
The longer the Libs ignore 61% of voters want Turnbull and not Abbott the longer Labor are in the game. If I were Labor i'd hold on until a month before an election, dump Gillard for the people's choice and watch the libs lose the unlosable election. Though I doubt Labor are that smart.


What about the carbon tax? Do you think that Labor have any chance while it's still there? I certainly don't.

I remember when Abbott became leader in late 2009. A lot of people were saying that it didn't matter what Labor does, the Coalition had no chance while he was there, irrespective of who led Labor, as well.

57-43 says otherwise.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Gist on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:21pm

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:17pm:
For me, it's Turnbull>Abbott>Hockey.


Turnbull>Hockey>?

I'd have to give that last one some thought. Forget Abbott. The only thing he'd be preferable to would be fresh dog vomit and even then I'd have to think carefully.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by dsmithy70 on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:21pm

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:40am:
I wonder how many of the 61% are Labor voters hoping Turnbull comeback in to save Gillard?



Ask And ye shall receive


Quote:
Mr Turnbull remains more popular than Mr Abbott among Labor and Greens voters by a ratio of four to one. But there is now no difference among Coalition voters, who used to favour Mr Abbott. The poll shows 49 per cent prefer Mr Turnbull and 50 per cent Mr Abbott.


Did you see those 4 words,
who used to favour Mr Abbott

Seem most Libs are waking up to the fact you cant govern with shallow slogans.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:23pm

Gist wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:18pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:10pm:
He was already dysfunctional - sandwiches, hair drier etc


All of which could be forgiven as long as things were basically hanging together in big picture terms. Towards the end though, they weren't.

The entire caucus has said pretty clearly that they don't want to go back to that - it was a record vote against Rudd just a few months ago. I think anyone trumpeting a return of the Ruddster is either projecting their own desires or just plain ignorant of the facts.



Or aware of the fact he is by far their best chance of pulling off a miraculous comeback win.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by PolitcalReality on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:27pm

john_g wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:43am:
Yes, sure do. As I have said time and again, I will most likely be donkey voting at the next election. There's no way I'm voting Green or Labor, but I don't see myself voting for an Abbott-led Coalition, either. A shame, because I always really valued my vote.

Put Turnbull there, and the Libs will be getting my vote, 100%.


You do know that by donkey voting you're still voting for somebody, you'd be better off voting informally

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Gist on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:15pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:23pm:
Or aware of the fact he is by far their best chance of pulling off a miraculous comeback win.


Which is simply another way of saying they are projecting their own desires for a win. It in no way changes the fact that the caucus are the only ones to elect the leader and they comprehensively rejected him.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by adelcrow on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:31pm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:23pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:18pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:10pm:
He was already dysfunctional - sandwiches, hair drier etc


All of which could be forgiven as long as things were basically hanging together in big picture terms. Towards the end though, they weren't.

The entire caucus has said pretty clearly that they don't want to go back to that - it was a record vote against Rudd just a few months ago. I think anyone trumpeting a return of the Ruddster is either projecting their own desires or just plain ignorant of the facts.



Or aware of the fact he is by far their best chance of pulling off a miraculous comeback win.


We'll know by this time next year after the carbon price has had 12 mths to bed down.
I wouldnt be trying to predict the election outcome until then.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Andrei.Hicks on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:40pm

adelcrow wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:31pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:23pm:

Gist wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:18pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:10pm:
He was already dysfunctional - sandwiches, hair drier etc


All of which could be forgiven as long as things were basically hanging together in big picture terms. Towards the end though, they weren't.

The entire caucus has said pretty clearly that they don't want to go back to that - it was a record vote against Rudd just a few months ago. I think anyone trumpeting a return of the Ruddster is either projecting their own desires or just plain ignorant of the facts.



Or aware of the fact he is by far their best chance of pulling off a miraculous comeback win.


We'll know by this time next year after the carbon price has had 12 mths to bed down.
I wouldnt be trying to predict the election outcome until then.


People's bills will rise and the economy looks like tanking.
The Labor brand is stuck on 26%-30% for the best part of a year.

If I was the ALP I wouldn't go ordering party hats.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:49pm
Actually I have watched a bit of QT lately and I dont see what the problem is with gillard. Yeah she lied but they ALL lie. You arent going to find one that doesnt lie. Apart from that she seems to know pretty much what she is doing. Shes trying to get her message across through QT because the media is anti-her but tony is so bad that he is doing it for her.

Of course she is not "left" thats for sure. And she is nothing like the labour of old. Heck she is carrying on howards policies. Thats not good but why would you take abbott over her when he is even worse i cant imagine. We need to dump them all and get a whole new batch to choose from. Get some real difference between the parties.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:30pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:49pm:
Actually I have watched a bit of QT lately and I dont see what the problem is with gillard. Yeah she lied but they ALL lie.
SOB



By saying this you are assuming all lies should be judged the same?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:31pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 12:21pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:40am:
I wonder how many of the 61% are Labor voters hoping Turnbull comeback in to save Gillard?



Ask And ye shall receive


Quote:
Mr Turnbull remains more popular than Mr Abbott among Labor and Greens voters by a ratio of four to one. But there is now no difference among Coalition voters, who used to favour Mr Abbott. The poll shows 49 per cent prefer Mr Turnbull and 50 per cent Mr Abbott.


Did you see those 4 words,
who used to favour Mr Abbott

Seem most Libs are waking up to the fact you cant govern with shallow slogans.



Yes but the TPP is still bad for Labor despite what you say

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:31pm

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:30pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:49pm:
Actually I have watched a bit of QT lately and I dont see what the problem is with gillard. Yeah she lied but they ALL lie.
SOB



By saying this you are assuming all lies should be judged the same?


They shouldn't? Children overboard! No carbon tax! <-- both lies.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:32pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:30pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:49pm:
Actually I have watched a bit of QT lately and I dont see what the problem is with gillard. Yeah she lied but they ALL lie.
SOB



By saying this you are assuming all lies should be judged the same?


They shouldn't? Children overboard! No carbon tax! <-- both lies.

SOB


So they are the same severity in your eye?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:36pm
So in a poll that shows:
1) Labor at its lowest level ever
2) 62% of labor supporters want Rudd
3) libs leading 57/43
4) Abbott as preferred PM

you pick up on this???


Doesnt make you look real clever.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:38pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:36pm:
So in a poll that shows:
1) Labor at its lowest level ever
2) 62% of labor supporters want Rudd
3) libs leading 57/43
4) Abbott as preferred PM

you pick up on this???


Doesnt make you look real clever.

Not too hard to look more clever than you.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:42pm

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:30pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:49pm:
Actually I have watched a bit of QT lately and I dont see what the problem is with gillard. Yeah she lied but they ALL lie.
SOB



By saying this you are assuming all lies should be judged the same?


They shouldn't? Children overboard! No carbon tax! <-- both lies.

SOB


So they are the same severity in your eye?


They are both lies. What are you trying to say?

Pollies lie to the people to manipulate them. Its what they do.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:44pm

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:36pm:
So in a poll that shows:
1) Labor at its lowest level ever
2) 62% of labor supporters want Rudd
3) libs leading 57/43
4) Abbott as preferred PM

you pick up on this???


Doesnt make you look real clever.

Not too hard to look more clever than you.


ah... the predictable primary school response.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Deathridesahorse on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:48pm

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:38am:
It's now official. 61% of ALL voters would prefer Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberals. A lot of us here have been saying that for a long time, now it is confirmed 61% of voters agree. So its only the rusted on far right extremists that want Abbott.






Quote:
Today's poll results also brought some bad news for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

The Nielsen poll finds that former leader and communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull is preferred as Coalition leader by 61 per cent of voters, compared with 34 per cent for Mr Abbott.

Mr Abbott's personal approval also fell 5 points to 39 per cent, while his disapproval rose 5 points to 57 per cent.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-will-absolutely-stay-as-leader-20120604-1zqth.html#ixzz1wmgWkNjy

No surprise: ABBOTT TREATS THE POPULATION AS MUSHROOMS!!

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:49pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:42pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:32pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:31pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:30pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 1:49pm:
Actually I have watched a bit of QT lately and I dont see what the problem is with gillard. Yeah she lied but they ALL lie.
SOB



By saying this you are assuming all lies should be judged the same?


They shouldn't? Children overboard! No carbon tax! <-- both lies.

SOB


So they are the same severity in your eye?


They are both lies. What are you trying to say?

Pollies lie to the people to manipulate them. Its what they do.

SOB


I believe you have not answered my questions - are all lies to be treated equally?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:50pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:44pm:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:38pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:36pm:
So in a poll that shows:
1) Labor at its lowest level ever
2) 62% of labor supporters want Rudd
3) libs leading 57/43
4) Abbott as preferred PM

you pick up on this???


Doesnt make you look real clever.

Not too hard to look more clever than you.


ah... the predictable primary school response.

Well the pre school statement by you didn't give me too much to work with. ::)

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:54pm
They are both lies. You answer my question. What are you insinuating?

That they are somehow different?

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:40pm
Hellooooo maqqa

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:42pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:54pm:
They are both lies. You answer my question. What are you insinuating?

That they are somehow different?

SOB



You have not answered my original question

The assumption you made was the lies are the same in terms of severity - is this correct?


Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:49pm

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:54pm:
They are both lies. You answer my question. What are you insinuating?

That they are somehow different?

SOB



You have not answered my original question

The assumption you made was the lies are the same in terms of severity - is this correct?


I dont see any "severity" there. They are both lies. Where does severity come into it?

What are you trying to make me say? That 1 of those lies is somehow "worse" than the other? Why?

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by adelcrow on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:52pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:54pm:
They are both lies. You answer my question. What are you insinuating?

That they are somehow different?

SOB



You have not answered my original question

The assumption you made was the lies are the same in terms of severity - is this correct?


I dont see any "severity" there. They are both lies. Where does severity come into it?

What are you trying to make me say? That 1 of those lies is somehow "worse" than the other? Why?

SOB


Conservatives only lie for the good of the nation..Labor lies to appease their communist overlords

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:54pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:54pm:
They are both lies. You answer my question. What are you insinuating?

That they are somehow different?

SOB



You have not answered my original question

The assumption you made was the lies are the same in terms of severity - is this correct?


I dont see any "severity" there. They are both lies. Where does severity come into it?

What are you trying to make me say? That 1 of those lies is somehow "worse" than the other? Why?

SOB



Let me illustrate:

(1) No I didn't eat the Xmas pudding

(2) There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead

Both are lies - obviously the second one will have greater severity of impact on the Australia economy than the first lie.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Prevailing on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:55pm
Be nice to get someone not related by birth to the current crop of inbred cretins in there...

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:54pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:54pm:
They are both lies. You answer my question. What are you insinuating?

That they are somehow different?

SOB



You have not answered my original question

The assumption you made was the lies are the same in terms of severity - is this correct?


I dont see any "severity" there. They are both lies. Where does severity come into it?

What are you trying to make me say? That 1 of those lies is somehow "worse" than the other? Why?

SOB



Let me illustrate:

(1) No I didn't eat the Xmas pudding

(2) There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead

Both are lies - obviously the second one will have greater severity of impact on the Australia economy than the first lie.


But the lies in question were "children overboard" and "no carbon tax"

I dont remember any pollie talking about xmas pudding.

If a pollie did lie about xmas pudding though you can be sure it was to manipulate the public in some way though.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:58pm
I was going to use the example of a "white lie" but have refrained for fear of being called "a racist" by leftards

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:59pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:54pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:49pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 5:42pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 4:54pm:
They are both lies. You answer my question. What are you insinuating?

That they are somehow different?

SOB



You have not answered my original question

The assumption you made was the lies are the same in terms of severity - is this correct?


I dont see any "severity" there. They are both lies. Where does severity come into it?

What are you trying to make me say? That 1 of those lies is somehow "worse" than the other? Why?

SOB



Let me illustrate:

(1) No I didn't eat the Xmas pudding

(2) There will be no carbon tax under a government I lead

Both are lies - obviously the second one will have greater severity of impact on the Australia economy than the first lie.


But the lies in question were "children overboard" and "no carbon tax"

I dont remember any pollie talking about xmas pudding.

If a pollie did lie about xmas pudding though you can be sure it was to manipulate the public in some way though.

SOB


So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by GoddyofOz on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:12pm

What the f*ck have I been saying since the end of last year? Both Gillard and Abbott have to go.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:34pm

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
What the f*ck have I been saying since the end of last year? Both Gillard and Abbott have to go.


why? because YOU say so? What possible insanity would cause the libs to risk a HUGE winning margin by changing the leader who is responsible for getting that lead?

Gillard onthe other hand is the reverse being the leader who LOST Rudds significant lead and now is so far behind that she is looking at eclipsing Whitlams loss.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by GoddyofOz on Jun 4th, 2012 at 10:55pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:34pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
What the f*ck have I been saying since the end of last year? Both Gillard and Abbott have to go.


why? because YOU say so? What possible insanity would cause the libs to risk a HUGE winning margin by changing the leader who is responsible for getting that lead?

Gillard onthe other hand is the reverse being the leader who LOST Rudds significant lead and now is so far behind that she is looking at eclipsing Whitlams loss.


Pull your head out of your arse; It was Gillard that gifted the Libs that lead, not Abbott.

You give him so much credit he doesn't deserve, you'll be massaging his feet the next time he has to bolt from Parliament at this rate.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:01am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


So you still won't answer the question

Its a simple yes or no

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:18am

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 10:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:34pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
What the f*ck have I been saying since the end of last year? Both Gillard and Abbott have to go.


why? because YOU say so? What possible insanity would cause the libs to risk a HUGE winning margin by changing the leader who is responsible for getting that lead?

Gillard onthe other hand is the reverse being the leader who LOST Rudds significant lead and now is so far behind that she is looking at eclipsing Whitlams loss.


Pull your head out of your arse; It was Gillard that gifted the Libs that lead, not Abbott.

You give him so much credit he doesn't deserve, you'll be massaging his feet the next time he has to bolt from Parliament at this rate.


his two predecessors failed totally yet Abbott has succeeded. and BTW abbott took on Rudd and hammered him first. Gillard was just his second scalp.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:21am

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:18am:

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 10:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:34pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
What the f*ck have I been saying since the end of last year? Both Gillard and Abbott have to go.


why? because YOU say so? What possible insanity would cause the libs to risk a HUGE winning margin by changing the leader who is responsible for getting that lead?

Gillard onthe other hand is the reverse being the leader who LOST Rudds significant lead and now is so far behind that she is looking at eclipsing Whitlams loss.


Pull your head out of your arse; It was Gillard that gifted the Libs that lead, not Abbott.

You give him so much credit he doesn't deserve, you'll be massaging his feet the next time he has to bolt from Parliament at this rate.


his two predecessors failed totally yet Abbott has succeeded. and BTW abbott took on Rudd and hammered him first. Gillard was just his second scalp.



The word is B1ATCH

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:53am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:21am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:18am:

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 10:55pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:34pm:

GoddyofOz wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:12pm:
What the f*ck have I been saying since the end of last year? Both Gillard and Abbott have to go.


why? because YOU say so? What possible insanity would cause the libs to risk a HUGE winning margin by changing the leader who is responsible for getting that lead?

Gillard onthe other hand is the reverse being the leader who LOST Rudds significant lead and now is so far behind that she is looking at eclipsing Whitlams loss.


Pull your head out of your arse; It was Gillard that gifted the Libs that lead, not Abbott.

You give him so much credit he doesn't deserve, you'll be massaging his feet the next time he has to bolt from Parliament at this rate.


his two predecessors failed totally yet Abbott has succeeded. and BTW abbott took on Rudd and hammered him first. Gillard was just his second scalp.



The word is B1ATCH


true... polling far worse than Whitlam is hardly an acheivement to be proud of esp while the opposition is polling close to record highs.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:38am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:01am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


So you still won't answer the question

Its a simple yes or no



Its answered right there

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:38am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:01am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


So you still won't answer the question

Its a simple yes or no



Its answered right there

SOB



Didn't ask about manipulation

I asked about the severity of impact

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:44am

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.



That's what I was trying to drive at longie

Each of the so called lies must be examined on its own and the impact it has

The children overboard impacted a handful of illegals

The carbon tax impacts 22 million Australians

I would pick the 22 million Australians over the illegals any day!!

If Aussies want to defend illegals then go do your work in Malaysia

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:55am

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.


Bullshit. He knew he was lying and he lied because he was (and still is) a lying lair. He cant do ANYTHING without lying. I was once on a plane arriving in canberra and he was onboard. Just because he wanted to get off first and he was up the back they LIED and said that if the back ppl didnt get off first the plane would tip over! You could hear the muffled laughter go through the plane. He just had to lie.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:57am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:44am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.



That's what I was trying to drive at longie

Each of the so called lies must be examined on its own and the impact it has

The children overboard impacted a handful of illegals

The carbon tax impacts 22 million Australians

I would pick the 22 million Australians over the illegals any day!!

If Aussies want to defend illegals then go do your work in Malaysia


Lies are lies. All lies coming from politicians are lies. Why you think one "sides" lies are okay and the other "sides" lies are not is silly because they are exactly the same. They have the exact same policies and the only difference is who the media favours.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:07am
SOB, when are you going to learn that its only a lie if a non Liberal/coalition  member tells it?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:33am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.


Bullshit. He knew he was lying and he lied because he was (and still is) a lying lair. He cant do ANYTHING without lying. I was once on a plane arriving in canberra and he was onboard. Just because he wanted to get off first and he was up the back they LIED and said that if the back ppl didnt get off first the plane would tip over! You could hear the muffled laughter go through the plane. He just had to lie.

SOB


Howard travelled between canberra and sydney by RAAF jet - not commercial. And i doubt he has travelled cattel class in many decades. So no, I dont beleive your story. it is a lie.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:50am

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.


Bullshit. He knew he was lying and he lied because he was (and still is) a lying lair. He cant do ANYTHING without lying. I was once on a plane arriving in canberra and he was onboard. Just because he wanted to get off first and he was up the back they LIED and said that if the back ppl didnt get off first the plane would tip over! You could hear the muffled laughter go through the plane. He just had to lie.

SOB


Howard travelled between canberra and sydney by RAAF jet - not commercial. And i doubt he has travelled cattel class in many decades. So no, I dont beleive your story. it is a lie.


Not always. It was when that herc or F1-11 was being repaired. Dont remember what year it was but it WAS on the news. He travelled by quantus several times.

I dont really care if you believe me or not though.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by adelcrow on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:54am
Labor tells lies to grab power and the Liberals tell lies because they always know whats best for us  ;D

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:11am
Turnbull is in yesterdays fish 'n' chips wrappings.
He had his day in the sun, and he's the closest thing to a Labor polly in the Coalition.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Doctor Jolly on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:21am

Looks like the liberals will win in a landslide, and therefore  have at least 2 terms of government, maybe more.

They need to ask themselves who they would want as prime minister for that long.  A nutcase like Abbott, or a statesman like Turnbull, which could see then out to 3 or 4 terms of government.

Their lead is so handsome, they could afford to change leader before the election. And if they do want to change, it needs to be before the election, otherwise they are stuck with Abbott for a long, long time.

Abbott is by far the better opposition leader. But who would make the better prime minister ?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:35am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.


Bullshit. He knew he was lying and he lied because he was (and still is) a lying lair. He cant do ANYTHING without lying. I was once on a plane arriving in canberra and he was onboard. Just because he wanted to get off first and he was up the back they LIED and said that if the back ppl didnt get off first the plane would tip over! You could hear the muffled laughter go through the plane. He just had to lie.

SOB


Howard travelled between canberra and sydney by RAAF jet - not commercial. And i doubt he has travelled cattel class in many decades. So no, I dont beleive your story. it is a lie.


Not always. It was when that herc or F1-11 was being repaired. Dont remember what year it was but it WAS on the news. He travelled by quantus several times.

I dont really care if you believe me or not though.

SOB


if you want to lie then you need to be credible. the chances of a PM flying cattle class in the back of a plane is zero.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 5th, 2012 at 11:55am
It was one of those small planes. There was no first class or cattle class. Do you know anything @ all about planes?

No matter. I can take it as a compliment that you think I am imaginative enough to make a story like that up. Thanks mate.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by FriYAY on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:05pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.


Bullshit. He knew he was lying and he lied because he was (and still is) a lying lair. He cant do ANYTHING without lying. I was once on a plane arriving in canberra and he was onboard. Just because he wanted to get off first and he was up the back they LIED and said that if the back ppl didnt get off first the plane would tip over! You could hear the muffled laughter go through the plane. He just had to lie.

SOB


Howard travelled between canberra and sydney by RAAF jet - not commercial. And i doubt he has travelled cattel class in many decades. So no, I dont beleive your story. it is a lie.


Not always. It was when that herc or F1-11 was being repaired. Dont remember what year it was but it WAS on the news. He travelled by quantus several times.

I dont really care if you believe me or not though.

SOB


Oh yes it was the F1-11.

JWH often travelled in a jet fighter. ::)

You were on the plane, but can’t remember the date!

Biggest load of bollocks ever written. ;)


Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:59pm

FriYAY wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.


Bullshit. He knew he was lying and he lied because he was (and still is) a lying lair. He cant do ANYTHING without lying. I was once on a plane arriving in canberra and he was onboard. Just because he wanted to get off first and he was up the back they LIED and said that if the back ppl didnt get off first the plane would tip over! You could hear the muffled laughter go through the plane. He just had to lie.

SOB


Howard travelled between canberra and sydney by RAAF jet - not commercial. And i doubt he has travelled cattel class in many decades. So no, I dont beleive your story. it is a lie.


Not always. It was when that herc or F1-11 was being repaired. Dont remember what year it was but it WAS on the news. He travelled by quantus several times.

I dont really care if you believe me or not though.

SOB


Oh yes it was the F1-11.

JWH often travelled in a jet fighter. ::)

You were on the plane, but can’t remember the date!

Biggest load of bollocks ever written. ;)


the F111 was really the killer aspect to the story. it seats two - including the pilot.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by adelcrow on Jun 5th, 2012 at 1:00pm
Ask the families of the dead Aussie soldiers and Iraqi civilians what impact Howards lie has had on them.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 5th, 2012 at 1:03pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.


Bullshit. He knew he was lying and he lied because he was (and still is) a lying lair. He cant do ANYTHING without lying. I was once on a plane arriving in canberra and he was onboard. Just because he wanted to get off first and he was up the back they LIED and said that if the back ppl didnt get off first the plane would tip over! You could hear the muffled laughter go through the plane. He just had to lie.

SOB


Howard travelled between canberra and sydney by RAAF jet - not commercial. And i doubt he has travelled cattel class in many decades. So no, I dont beleive your story. it is a lie.


Not always. It was when that herc or F1-11 was being repaired. Dont remember what year it was but it WAS on the news. He travelled by quantus several times.

I dont really care if you believe me or not though.

SOB


Oh yes it was the F1-11.

JWH often travelled in a jet fighter. ::)

You were on the plane, but can’t remember the date!

Biggest load of bollocks ever written. ;)


the F111 was really the killer aspect to the story. it seats two - including the pilot.

LOL the biggest liar on the forum calling others a liar. how do you know SOB wasn't the pilot, liarinthecloset? Besides, SOB didn't even say it was in a F1 11,liar.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 5th, 2012 at 1:09pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.


Bullshit. He knew he was lying and he lied because he was (and still is) a lying lair. He cant do ANYTHING without lying. I was once on a plane arriving in canberra and he was onboard. Just because he wanted to get off first and he was up the back they LIED and said that if the back ppl didnt get off first the plane would tip over! You could hear the muffled laughter go through the plane. He just had to lie.

SOB


Howard travelled between canberra and sydney by RAAF jet - not commercial. And i doubt he has travelled cattel class in many decades. So no, I dont beleive your story. it is a lie.


Not always. It was when that herc or F1-11 was being repaired. Dont remember what year it was but it WAS on the news. He travelled by quantus several times.

I dont really care if you believe me or not though.

SOB


Oh yes it was the F1-11.

JWH often travelled in a jet fighter. ::)

You were on the plane, but can’t remember the date!

Biggest load of bollocks ever written. ;)


the F111 was really the killer aspect to the story. it seats two - including the pilot.



I said "or" because I couldn't remember which it was. I dont know about RAAF planes. My wife was working on the damaged one though.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by longweekend58 on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:19pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 1:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.


Bullshit. He knew he was lying and he lied because he was (and still is) a lying lair. He cant do ANYTHING without lying. I was once on a plane arriving in canberra and he was onboard. Just because he wanted to get off first and he was up the back they LIED and said that if the back ppl didnt get off first the plane would tip over! You could hear the muffled laughter go through the plane. He just had to lie.

SOB


Howard travelled between canberra and sydney by RAAF jet - not commercial. And i doubt he has travelled cattel class in many decades. So no, I dont beleive your story. it is a lie.


Not always. It was when that herc or F1-11 was being repaired. Dont remember what year it was but it WAS on the news. He travelled by quantus several times.

I dont really care if you believe me or not though.

SOB


Oh yes it was the F1-11.

JWH often travelled in a jet fighter. ::)

You were on the plane, but can’t remember the date!

Biggest load of bollocks ever written. ;)


the F111 was really the killer aspect to the story. it seats two - including the pilot.



I said "or" because I couldn't remember which it was. I dont know about RAAF planes. My wife was working on the damaged one though.

SOB


F111 is a fighter-bomber. it doesnt take passengers. that statement damaged the credibility of your story. no wonder you believe Thomson. You obviously beleive ANYTHING - including your own concoctions!

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by dsmithy70 on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:26pm
For my 2 cents worth.
I seem to remember Howard was chastised for living in Sydney(for the children's sake of course) rather than Canberra.
Costing the tax payers flying back and forth every weekend.
There was talk of him taking the dash 8 out of Sydney to neutralise the attacks but I hardly think it was ever done.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:56am

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:19pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 1:09pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:59pm:

FriYAY wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.


Bullshit. He knew he was lying and he lied because he was (and still is) a lying lair. He cant do ANYTHING without lying. I was once on a plane arriving in canberra and he was onboard. Just because he wanted to get off first and he was up the back they LIED and said that if the back ppl didnt get off first the plane would tip over! You could hear the muffled laughter go through the plane. He just had to lie.

SOB


Howard travelled between canberra and sydney by RAAF jet - not commercial. And i doubt he has travelled cattel class in many decades. So no, I dont beleive your story. it is a lie.


Not always. It was when that herc or F1-11 was being repaired. Dont remember what year it was but it WAS on the news. He travelled by quantus several times.

I dont really care if you believe me or not though.

SOB


Oh yes it was the F1-11.

JWH often travelled in a jet fighter. ::)

You were on the plane, but can’t remember the date!

Biggest load of bollocks ever written. ;)


the F111 was really the killer aspect to the story. it seats two - including the pilot.



I said "or" because I couldn't remember which it was. I dont know about RAAF planes. My wife was working on the damaged one though.

SOB


F111 is a fighter-bomber. it doesnt take passengers. that statement damaged the credibility of your story. no wonder you believe Thomson. You obviously beleive ANYTHING - including your own concoctions!


You are just an idiot though so I dont care what you think.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:58am

Dsmithy70 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:26pm:
For my 2 cents worth.
I seem to remember Howard was chastised for living in Sydney(for the children's sake of course) rather than Canberra.
Costing the tax payers flying back and forth every weekend.
There was talk of him taking the dash 8 out of Sydney to neutralise the attacks but I hardly think it was ever done.


There was stuff in the news about F1-11s and a herc that was damaged @ the time. @ any rate he and his entourage caught a quantus plane. And it didnt just happen once either. I only was there once though.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by adelcrow on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:02am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!


Most of those millions are getting income tax cuts and increases in middle class welfare to make up for it so how are they being impacted?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:15am

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:02am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!


Most of those millions are getting income tax cuts and increases in middle class welfare to make up for it so how are they being impacted?


Uhhh. 18000 is middle class?

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:16am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!

They will be compensated MOST OF THEM OVER COMPENSATED .
Unlike the Iraq families that had children killed as a result of an illegal war,moron.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by adelcrow on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:17am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:15am:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:02am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!


Most of those millions are getting income tax cuts and increases in middle class welfare to make up for it so how are they being impacted?


Uhhh. 18000 is middle class?

SOB


oops and genuine welfare recipients  :P

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by adelcrow on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:18am
Abbott always forgets to mention the tax cuts and compensation and so do his minions.
It looks like the Libs are still mean and tricky

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:21am

skippy. wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:16am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!

They will be compensated MOST OF THEM OVER COMPENSATED .
Unlike the Iraq families that had children killed as a result of an illegal war,moron.



Compensated?  :D :D :D

Is that why 63% rejected the carbon tax?!!!

As for the "legality of the war"

It's been a decade - there are no prosecutions of Howard or anyone else. Suck it up princess

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by adelcrow on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:24am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:21am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:16am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!

They will be compensated MOST OF THEM OVER COMPENSATED .
Unlike the Iraq families that had children killed as a result of an illegal war,moron.



Compensated?  :D :D :D

Is that why 63% rejected the carbon tax?!!!

As for the "legality of the war"

It's been a decade - there are no prosecutions of Howard or anyone else. Suck it up princess


The majority of people dont want to pay income tax..should we scrap it?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:27am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:21am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:16am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!

They will be compensated MOST OF THEM OVER COMPENSATED .
Unlike the Iraq families that had children killed as a result of an illegal war,moron.



Compensated?  :D :D :D

Is that why 63% rejected the carbon tax?!!!

As for the "legality of the war"

It's been a decade - there are no prosecutions of Howard or anyone else. Suck it up princess

No wonder everyone thinks you're a moron, they haven't been compensated yet,diq. ::)

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by adelcrow on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:32am

skippy. wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:27am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:21am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:16am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!

They will be compensated MOST OF THEM OVER COMPENSATED .
Unlike the Iraq families that had children killed as a result of an illegal war,moron.



Compensated?  :D :D :D

Is that why 63% rejected the carbon tax?!!!

As for the "legality of the war"

It's been a decade - there are no prosecutions of Howard or anyone else. Suck it up princess

No wonder everyone thinks you're a moron, they haven't been compensated yet,diq. ::)


Of course Maqqa never mentions Abbotts policy on CO2 pollution, the cost, where the money is going and where it is coming from.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:50am

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:17am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:15am:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:02am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!


Most of those millions are getting income tax cuts and increases in middle class welfare to make up for it so how are they being impacted?


Uhhh. 18000 is middle class?

SOB


oops and genuine welfare recipients  :P


Oh? What other compensation is there? As far as I know its the tax breaks for under 18000 and the "family bonus" crap which is just taking the place of the tax break they used to get but dont any more. Is there something else I dont know about?

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by adelcrow on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:57am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:50am:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:17am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:15am:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:02am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!


Most of those millions are getting income tax cuts and increases in middle class welfare to make up for it so how are they being impacted?


Uhhh. 18000 is middle class?

SOB


oops and genuine welfare recipients  :P


Oh? What other compensation is there? As far as I know its the tax breaks for under 18000 and the "family bonus" crap which is just taking the place of the tax break they used to get but dont any more. Is there something else I dont know about?

SOB


You will pay less income tax if you earn 80,000 or less per annum.
Personally I dont think there should be any compensation to anyone and every cent taken in by the tax should be used for research and development and subsidising green energy.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Maqqa on Jun 6th, 2012 at 9:08am

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:24am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:21am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:16am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!

They will be compensated MOST OF THEM OVER COMPENSATED .
Unlike the Iraq families that had children killed as a result of an illegal war,moron.



Compensated?  :D :D :D

Is that why 63% rejected the carbon tax?!!!

As for the "legality of the war"

It's been a decade - there are no prosecutions of Howard or anyone else. Suck it up princess


The majority of people dont want to pay income tax..should we scrap it?


Sure - then you won't eat

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by adelcrow on Jun 6th, 2012 at 9:10am

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 9:08am:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:24am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:21am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:16am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!

They will be compensated MOST OF THEM OVER COMPENSATED .
Unlike the Iraq families that had children killed as a result of an illegal war,moron.



Compensated?  :D :D :D

Is that why 63% rejected the carbon tax?!!!

As for the "legality of the war"

It's been a decade - there are no prosecutions of Howard or anyone else. Suck it up princess


The majority of people dont want to pay income tax..should we scrap it?


Sure - then you won't eat


I thought the majority of opinion ruled the day?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Jun 6th, 2012 at 9:24am

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:57am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:50am:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:17am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:15am:

adelcrow wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 8:02am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 6th, 2012 at 7:59am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB



I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB



I didn't ask about okay or not okay

I asked about severity of impact

you should ask about severity of impact of the thousands of families that has relatives killed as a result of an illegal invasion you inconsiderate twat.


And the millions of AUSTRALIAN families that will be impacted by Gillard's Carbon Tax

I choose to protect Australians first and foremost.

If you want to prioritize others then please move to that country!!!!


Most of those millions are getting income tax cuts and increases in middle class welfare to make up for it so how are they being impacted?


Uhhh. 18000 is middle class?

SOB


oops and genuine welfare recipients  :P


Oh? What other compensation is there? As far as I know its the tax breaks for under 18000 and the "family bonus" crap which is just taking the place of the tax break they used to get but dont any more. Is there something else I dont know about?

SOB


You will pay less income tax if you earn 80,000 or less per annum.
Personally I dont think there should be any compensation to anyone and every cent taken in by the tax should be used for research and development and subsidising green energy.


I somehow missed this one. I knew about the NO tax return under 18000. So less under 80000? I wonder what they took away to compensate that one.

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Verge on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:17pm

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.


Bullshit. He knew he was lying and he lied because he was (and still is) a lying lair. He cant do ANYTHING without lying. I was once on a plane arriving in canberra and he was onboard. Just because he wanted to get off first and he was up the back they LIED and said that if the back ppl didnt get off first the plane would tip over! You could hear the muffled laughter go through the plane. He just had to lie.

SOB


Howard travelled between canberra and sydney by RAAF jet - not commercial. And i doubt he has travelled cattel class in many decades. So no, I dont beleive your story. it is a lie.


Not always. It was when that herc or F1-11 was being repaired. Dont remember what year it was but it WAS on the news. He travelled by quantus several times.

I dont really care if you believe me or not though.

SOB


If this the famous quote where Spot of Magpie said howard rode in a F1-11!

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by chicken_lipsforme on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:55pm
Turnbull had his crack at being Opposition leader and failed.
Rudd had his crack at being Labor Prime Minister and failed.
Which is why they were both removed.

It's not "Groundhog Day" today is it?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by alevine on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:58pm

Maqqa wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:40am:
I wonder how many of the 61% are Labor voters hoping Turnbull comeback in to save Gillard?


What a dumb argument.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:01pm
And it's still the same, the overwhelming majority of voters  want Turnbull instead of phony tony.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by adelcrow on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:31pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 4:01pm:
And it's still the same, the overwhelming majority of voters  want Turnbull instead of phony tony.


The far right hardline ultra conservatives have taken over the Federal Liberal Party so Turnbull doesnt stand a snowballs chance in hell of ever leading the Libs again.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Spot of Borg on Nov 6th, 2012 at 5:40am

Verge wrote on Nov 5th, 2012 at 3:17pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:50am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 10:33am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:55am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 9:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 7:03am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 5th, 2012 at 6:40am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 6:00pm:

Quote:
So you consider both events as having the same severity of impact?


The goal of both was to manipulate the public so yes they were both lies.

SOB


WHY DO YOU ASK MAQQA?

SOB





I ask because your posts attempts to lump all lies in the same basket which is not the way society works

Shows your lefties tail?


Oh really. So that whole BS about children overboard was okay? And the WMDs in iraq was okay? But no carbon tax was not? What a complete hypocrit you are. All lies are lies.

SOB


not even in the same league. Howard was reporting what he was told - nothing more. the carbon tax promise however was told to EVERYBODY and then reneged on mere days after the election.


Bullshit. He knew he was lying and he lied because he was (and still is) a lying lair. He cant do ANYTHING without lying. I was once on a plane arriving in canberra and he was onboard. Just because he wanted to get off first and he was up the back they LIED and said that if the back ppl didnt get off first the plane would tip over! You could hear the muffled laughter go through the plane. He just had to lie.

SOB


Howard travelled between canberra and sydney by RAAF jet - not commercial. And i doubt he has travelled cattel class in many decades. So no, I dont beleive your story. it is a lie.


Not always. It was when that herc or F1-11 was being repaired. Dont remember what year it was but it WAS on the news. He travelled by quantus several times.

I dont really care if you believe me or not though.

SOB


If this the famous quote where Spot of Magpie said howard rode in a F1-11!


Yeah this is it - notice how i didnt say it?

SOB

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Armchair_Politician on Nov 6th, 2012 at 5:47am
The interesting thing about the poll between Turnbull and Abbott is that more ALP voters want Turnbull than Abbott, yet more Coalition voters want Abbott than Turnbull. So, what does that tell you? I sure as hell don't want Turnbull. Turnbull is an ALP sheep in Coalition clothing.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Kat on Nov 6th, 2012 at 6:03am
It tells ME that more ALP voters care about the COUNTRY
whereas most Libs think and care only for themselves.

Abbott MAY be good for the Coalition.

But he will NOT be good for the country.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by progressiveslol on Nov 6th, 2012 at 6:43am

Kat wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 6:03am:
It tells ME that more ALP voters care about the COUNTRY
whereas most Libs think and care only for themselves.

Abbott MAY be good for the Coalition.

But he will NOT be good for the country.

It tells me they would rather a liberal leader that is more like their labor leader.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 6:58am

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 5:47am:
The interesting thing about the poll between Turnbull and Abbott is that more ALP voters want Turnbull than Abbott, .

Evidence ? or it's just another one of your lies you never back up with facts.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by aquascoot on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:06am

Kat wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 6:03am:
It tells ME that more ALP voters care about the COUNTRY
whereas most Libs think and care only for themselves.

Abbott MAY be good for the Coalition.

But he will NOT be good for the country.


and labors 200 billion of debt wasted on crap is good for the country ;) ;)
the mad woman with the credit card comes home and then the statement arrives in the mail showing that the family is now bankrupt ;) ;)
good work honey ;) ;)

i could teach my pet dog to spend dough, its really not that hard.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by olde.sault on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:33am

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:38am:
It's now official. 61% of ALL voters would prefer Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberals. A lot of us here have been saying that for a long time, now it is confirmed 61% of voters agree. So its only the rusted on far right extremists that want Abbott.






Quote:
Today's poll results also brought some bad news for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

The Nielsen poll finds that former leader and communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull is preferred as Coalition leader by 61 per cent of voters, compared with 34 per cent for Mr Abbott.

Mr Abbott's personal approval also fell 5 points to 39 per cent, while his disapproval rose 5 points to 57 per cent.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-will-absolutely-stay-as-leader-20120604-1zqth.html#ixzz1wmgWkNjy


61% of  'Labor' voters want Turnbull to lead the coalition, not the sensible voters on the right.

The fact that Turnbull approves of the carbon dioxide tax makes him an enemy of Australia.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 12:06pm

olde.sault wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:33am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:38am:
It's now official. 61% of ALL voters would prefer Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberals. A lot of us here have been saying that for a long time, now it is confirmed 61% of voters agree. So its only the rusted on far right extremists that want Abbott.






Quote:
Today's poll results also brought some bad news for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

The Nielsen poll finds that former leader and communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull is preferred as Coalition leader by 61 per cent of voters, compared with 34 per cent for Mr Abbott.

Mr Abbott's personal approval also fell 5 points to 39 per cent, while his disapproval rose 5 points to 57 per cent.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-will-absolutely-stay-as-leader-20120604-1zqth.html#ixzz1wmgWkNjy


61% of  'Labor' voters want Turnbull to lead the coalition, not the sensible voters on the right.

The fact that Turnbull approves of the carbon dioxide tax makes him an enemy of Australia.

Still cant provide the numbers oldsock,even armpit is not dumb enough to   come out from under his rock.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 12:51pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:33am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:38am:
It's now official. 61% of ALL voters would prefer Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberals. A lot of us here have been saying that for a long time, now it is confirmed 61% of voters agree. So its only the rusted on far right extremists that want Abbott.






Quote:
Today's poll results also brought some bad news for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

The Nielsen poll finds that former leader and communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull is preferred as Coalition leader by 61 per cent of voters, compared with 34 per cent for Mr Abbott.

Mr Abbott's personal approval also fell 5 points to 39 per cent, while his disapproval rose 5 points to 57 per cent.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-will-absolutely-stay-as-leader-20120604-1zqth.html#ixzz1wmgWkNjy


61% of  'Labor' voters want Turnbull to lead the coalition, not the sensible voters on the right.

The fact that Turnbull approves of the carbon dioxide tax makes him an enemy of Australia.

Still cant provide the numbers oldsock,even armpit is not dumb enough to   come out from under his rock.


Fool just discovered the numbers he wants as 'evidence' are already in thr article.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Christ you're as dumb as dog shitt.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:06pm
I am a lifelong Lib voter and would much much much rather Abbott led the Libs. But it doesn't matter who leads, what their policies are or whatever else I've always voted Liberal and always will.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by dsmithy70 on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:14pm

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:06pm:
I am a lifelong Lib voter and would much much much rather Abbott led the Libs. But it doesn't matter who leads, what their policies are or whatever else I've always voted Liberal and always will.


rusted on refers to about 30% of both sides votes
you don't matter
you are taken for granted

Congratulations.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:19pm

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:33am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:38am:
It's now official. 61% of ALL voters would prefer Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberals. A lot of us here have been saying that for a long time, now it is confirmed 61% of voters agree. So its only the rusted on far right extremists that want Abbott.






Quote:
Today's poll results also brought some bad news for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

The Nielsen poll finds that former leader and communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull is preferred as Coalition leader by 61 per cent of voters, compared with 34 per cent for Mr Abbott.

Mr Abbott's personal approval also fell 5 points to 39 per cent, while his disapproval rose 5 points to 57 per cent.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-will-absolutely-stay-as-leader-20120604-1zqth.html#ixzz1wmgWkNjy


61% of  'Labor' voters want Turnbull to lead the coalition, not the sensible voters on the right.

The fact that Turnbull approves of the carbon dioxide tax makes him an enemy of Australia.

Still cant provide the numbers oldsock,even armpit is not dumb enough to   come out from under his rock.


Fool just discovered the numbers he wants as 'evidence' are already in thr article.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Christ you're as dumb as dog shitt.

LOl idiot, I posted the article, it says 61 percent of voters,spermy, now swallow.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:28pm
Not to mention the article is months old,phony Tony has even lost more ground since then. ;D ;D :D ;D
It doesn't seem to matter which sock you use, Shane, the are all dumbasses. ;D :D

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:55pm

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:06pm:
I am a lifelong Lib voter and would much much much rather Abbott led the Libs. But it doesn't matter who leads, what their policies are or whatever else I've always voted Liberal and always will.


rusted on refers to about 30% of both sides votes
you don't matter
you are taken for granted

Congratulations.


More like loyal and being from Lilley my vote will count when we kick out Swan.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by alevine on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:57pm

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:06pm:
I am a lifelong Lib voter and would much much much rather Abbott led the Libs. But it doesn't matter who leads, what their policies are or whatever else I've always voted Liberal and always will.


rusted on refers to about 30% of both sides votes
you don't matter
you are taken for granted

Congratulations.


More like loyal and being from Lilley my vote will count when we kick out Swan.


You're from Sydney tho. Lilley is in queensland, dear.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:59pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:57pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:06pm:
I am a lifelong Lib voter and would much much much rather Abbott led the Libs. But it doesn't matter who leads, what their policies are or whatever else I've always voted Liberal and always will.


rusted on refers to about 30% of both sides votes
you don't matter
you are taken for granted

Congratulations.


More like loyal and being from Lilley my vote will count when we kick out Swan.


You're from Sydney tho. Lilley is in queensland, dear.


Don't call me dear and don't spread lies about me.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by alevine on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:09pm

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:59pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:57pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:06pm:
I am a lifelong Lib voter and would much much much rather Abbott led the Libs. But it doesn't matter who leads, what their policies are or whatever else I've always voted Liberal and always will.


rusted on refers to about 30% of both sides votes
you don't matter
you are taken for granted

Congratulations.


More like loyal and being from Lilley my vote will count when we kick out Swan.


You're from Sydney tho. Lilley is in queensland, dear.


Don't call me dear and don't spread lies about me.


Sorry matty

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:09pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:59pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:57pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:06pm:
I am a lifelong Lib voter and would much much much rather Abbott led the Libs. But it doesn't matter who leads, what their policies are or whatever else I've always voted Liberal and always will.


rusted on refers to about 30% of both sides votes
you don't matter
you are taken for granted

Congratulations.


More like loyal and being from Lilley my vote will count when we kick out Swan.


You're from Sydney tho. Lilley is in queensland, dear.


Don't call me dear and don't spread lies about me.


Sorry matty


Proof now.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by alevine on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:10pm

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:59pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:57pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:06pm:
I am a lifelong Lib voter and would much much much rather Abbott led the Libs. But it doesn't matter who leads, what their policies are or whatever else I've always voted Liberal and always will.


rusted on refers to about 30% of both sides votes
you don't matter
you are taken for granted

Congratulations.


More like loyal and being from Lilley my vote will count when we kick out Swan.


You're from Sydney tho. Lilley is in queensland, dear.


Don't call me dear and don't spread lies about me.


Sorry matty


Proof now.

Sorry Matty.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:14pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:59pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:57pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:06pm:
I am a lifelong Lib voter and would much much much rather Abbott led the Libs. But it doesn't matter who leads, what their policies are or whatever else I've always voted Liberal and always will.


rusted on refers to about 30% of both sides votes
you don't matter
you are taken for granted

Congratulations.


More like loyal and being from Lilley my vote will count when we kick out Swan.


You're from Sydney tho. Lilley is in queensland, dear.


Don't call me dear and don't spread lies about me.


Sorry matty


Proof now.

Sorry Matty.


If you're so sure that I am this matty then why won't you provide proof?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by alevine on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:20pm

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:10pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:09pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:59pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:57pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:14pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 1:06pm:
I am a lifelong Lib voter and would much much much rather Abbott led the Libs. But it doesn't matter who leads, what their policies are or whatever else I've always voted Liberal and always will.


rusted on refers to about 30% of both sides votes
you don't matter
you are taken for granted

Congratulations.


More like loyal and being from Lilley my vote will count when we kick out Swan.


You're from Sydney tho. Lilley is in queensland, dear.


Don't call me dear and don't spread lies about me.


Sorry matty


Proof now.

Sorry Matty.


If you're so sure that I am this matty then why won't you provide proof?


Sorry matty

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:26pm
You provide proof every post you make, doofus, no one is as big a moron as the sock master of Matty and the chimpsox.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:42pm
Funny how I've seen both of you say you want proof about Gillard's alleged corruption in the AWU scandal but you won't give any proof that I am matty. Double standards at play again.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:46pm

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:42pm:
Funny how I've seen both of you say you want proof about Gillard's alleged corruption in the AWU scandal but you won't give any proof that I am matty. Double standards at play again.

Do you mean proof like you all post from the same IP address?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:47pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:46pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:42pm:
Funny how I've seen both of you say you want proof about Gillard's alleged corruption in the AWU scandal but you won't give any proof that I am matty. Double standards at play again.

Do you mean proof like you all post from the same IP address?


If you've got ANY proof then provide it.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:48pm
Or proof that all the Matty sox make the same grammar/spelling mistakes and the same sentence structure.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:49pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:46pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:42pm:
Funny how I've seen both of you say you want proof about Gillard's alleged corruption in the AWU scandal but you won't give any proof that I am matty. Double standards at play again.

Do you mean proof like you all post from the same IP address?


Please, show us.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:50pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:48pm:
Or proof that all the Matty sox make the same grammar/spelling mistakes and the same sentence structure.


Please, show us.

You really are a retard.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:50pm
Or proof that they all use the same phrases and plead  the same stupid one liners in your defence?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:51pm

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:48pm:
Or proof that all the Matty sox make the same grammar/spelling mistakes and the same sentence structure.


Please, show us.

You really are a retard.

I would have thought this particular sock would stay out of this given it was outed as a sock by its own stupidity, but some  suckers can't shut up, another typical Matty trait.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:52pm
Best choice for Liberal leader
                                Total Labor Coalition
Malcolm Turnbull      60%      75%      51%
Tony Abbott              29%      14%      45%
Uncommitted              11%      11%      4%

http://www.galaxyresearch.com.au/in-the-news/

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:54pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:48pm:
Or proof that all the Matty sox make the same grammar/spelling mistakes and the same sentence structure.


Please, show us.

You really are a retard.

I would have thought this particular sock would stay out of this given it was outed as a sock by its own stupidity, but some  suckers can't shut up, another typical Matty trait.


You've got nothing.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:54pm

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:52pm:
Best choice for Liberal leader
                                Total Labor Coalition
Malcolm Turnbull      60%      75%      51%
Tony Abbott              29%      14%      45%
Uncommitted              11%      11%      4%

So you admit you lied when you called me names and said it was 60 % Labor voters, spermy, retard.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:55pm

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:54pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:48pm:
Or proof that all the Matty sox make the same grammar/spelling mistakes and the same sentence structure.


Please, show us.

You really are a retard.

I would have thought this particular sock would stay out of this given it was outed as a sock by its own stupidity, but some  suckers can't shut up, another typical Matty trait.


You've got nothing.

I've got you on record admitting you use sox, spermy.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:55pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:54pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:52pm:
Best choice for Liberal leader
                                Total Labor Coalition
Malcolm Turnbull      60%      75%      51%
Tony Abbott              29%      14%      45%
Uncommitted              11%      11%      4%

So you admit you lied when you called me names and said it was 60 % Labor voters, spermy, retard.


I never said anything, pisscunt. Just giving you the evidence you were sooking for.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:57pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:55pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:54pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:48pm:
Or proof that all the Matty sox make the same grammar/spelling mistakes and the same sentence structure.


Please, show us.

You really are a retard.

I would have thought this particular sock would stay out of this given it was outed as a sock by its own stupidity, but some  suckers can't shut up, another typical Matty trait.


You've got nothing.

I've got you on record admitting you use sox, spermy.


But I'm still Matty.

:D :D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:58pm

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:33am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:38am:
It's now official. 61% of ALL voters would prefer Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberals. A lot of us here have been saying that for a long time, now it is confirmed 61% of voters agree. So its only the rusted on far right extremists that want Abbott.






Quote:
Today's poll results also brought some bad news for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

The Nielsen poll finds that former leader and communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull is preferred as Coalition leader by 61 per cent of voters, compared with 34 per cent for Mr Abbott.

Mr Abbott's personal approval also fell 5 points to 39 per cent, while his disapproval rose 5 points to 57 per cent.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-will-absolutely-stay-as-leader-20120604-1zqth.html#ixzz1wmgWkNjy


61% of  'Labor' voters want Turnbull to lead the coalition, not the sensible voters on the right.

The fact that Turnbull approves of the carbon dioxide tax makes him an enemy of Australia.

Still cant provide the numbers oldsock,even armpit is not dumb enough to   come out from under his rock.


Fool just discovered the numbers he wants as 'evidence' are already in thr article.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Christ you're as dumb as dog shitt.

Matty must have thought he was using a brighter sock than spermy Shane when he posted this, As you can see in his above post, he denies he said this, oh spermy , what a tard.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:01pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:58pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:33am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:38am:
It's now official. 61% of ALL voters would prefer Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberals. A lot of us here have been saying that for a long time, now it is confirmed 61% of voters agree. So its only the rusted on far right extremists that want Abbott.






Quote:
Today's poll results also brought some bad news for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

The Nielsen poll finds that former leader and communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull is preferred as Coalition leader by 61 per cent of voters, compared with 34 per cent for Mr Abbott.

Mr Abbott's personal approval also fell 5 points to 39 per cent, while his disapproval rose 5 points to 57 per cent.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-will-absolutely-stay-as-leader-20120604-1zqth.html#ixzz1wmgWkNjy


61% of  'Labor' voters want Turnbull to lead the coalition, not the sensible voters on the right.

The fact that Turnbull approves of the carbon dioxide tax makes him an enemy of Australia.

Still cant provide the numbers oldsock,even armpit is not dumb enough to   come out from under his rock.


Fool just discovered the numbers he wants as 'evidence' are already in thr article.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Christ you're as dumb as dog shitt.

Matty must have thought he was using a brighter sock than spermy Shane when he posted this, As you can see in his above post, he denies he said this, oh spermy , what a tard.


And I am Olde Sault.

:D :D :D :D :D

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:03pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:58pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 12:51pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

olde.sault wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 7:33am:

skippy. wrote on Jun 4th, 2012 at 11:38am:
It's now official. 61% of ALL voters would prefer Malcolm Turnbull to lead the Liberals. A lot of us here have been saying that for a long time, now it is confirmed 61% of voters agree. So its only the rusted on far right extremists that want Abbott.






Quote:
Today's poll results also brought some bad news for Opposition Leader Tony Abbott.

The Nielsen poll finds that former leader and communications spokesman Malcolm Turnbull is preferred as Coalition leader by 61 per cent of voters, compared with 34 per cent for Mr Abbott.

Mr Abbott's personal approval also fell 5 points to 39 per cent, while his disapproval rose 5 points to 57 per cent.


Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/gillard-will-absolutely-stay-as-leader-20120604-1zqth.html#ixzz1wmgWkNjy


61% of  'Labor' voters want Turnbull to lead the coalition, not the sensible voters on the right.

The fact that Turnbull approves of the carbon dioxide tax makes him an enemy of Australia.

Still cant provide the numbers oldsock,even armpit is not dumb enough to   come out from under his rock.


Fool just discovered the numbers he wants as 'evidence' are already in thr article.

;D ;D ;D ;D

Christ you're as dumb as dog shitt.

Matty must have thought he was using a brighter sock than spermy Shane when he posted this, As you can see in his above post, he denies he said this, oh spermy , what a tard.


I am still waiting for your proof.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:04pm

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:57pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:55pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:54pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:48pm:
Or proof that all the Matty sox make the same grammar/spelling mistakes and the same sentence structure.


Please, show us.

You really are a retard.

I would have thought this particular sock would stay out of this given it was outed as a sock by its own stupidity, but some  suckers can't shut up, another typical Matty trait.


You've got nothing.

I've got you on record admitting you use sox, spermy.


But I'm still Matty.

:D :D :D :D :D :D


I am confused - are you matty Shane?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:05pm

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:04pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:57pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:55pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:54pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:48pm:
Or proof that all the Matty sox make the same grammar/spelling mistakes and the same sentence structure.


Please, show us.

You really are a retard.

I would have thought this particular sock would stay out of this given it was outed as a sock by its own stupidity, but some  suckers can't shut up, another typical Matty trait.


You've got nothing.

I've got you on record admitting you use sox, spermy.


But I'm still Matty.

:D :D :D :D :D :D


I am confused - are you matty Shane?


Skippy says so.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:07pm
Shane wrote-

Quote:
And I am Old Sault

I noticed someone else accuse you of that the other day, thanks for admitting to it. We all know you use sox, you even admitted it. :D ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:08pm

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:05pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:04pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:57pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:55pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:54pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:51pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:50pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 2:48pm:
Or proof that all the Matty sox make the same grammar/spelling mistakes and the same sentence structure.


Please, show us.

You really are a retard.

I would have thought this particular sock would stay out of this given it was outed as a sock by its own stupidity, but some  suckers can't shut up, another typical Matty trait.


You've got nothing.

I've got you on record admitting you use sox, spermy.


But I'm still Matty.

:D :D :D :D :D :D


I am confused - are you matty Shane?


Skippy says so.


Oh so just another wrongful accusation like me. The weird thing is that I don't ever even recall seeing him on here. He's an enigma.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm
LOL so typical of Matty, always wanting to talk  about himself as though he is a legend of sorts. :D :D :D
The problem with you, Shane, is that you are a known user of sox, when you deceive you are always considered a deceitful tool that can never be believed.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:14pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm:
LOL so typical of Matty, always wanting to talk  about himself as though he is a legend of sorts. :D :D :D
The problem with you, Shane, is that you are a known user of sox, when you deceive you are always considered a deceitful tool that can never be believed.


Just like you, deceitful liar.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:18pm

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm:
LOL so typical of Matty, always wanting to talk  about himself as though he is a legend of sorts. :D :D :D
The problem with you, Shane, is that you are a known user of sox, when you deceive you are always considered a deceitful tool that can never be believed.


Just like you, deceitful liar.

LOL hearsay from a known liar like you,I have evidence of your deceit though. ;D ;D

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:22pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm:
LOL so typical of Matty, always wanting to talk  about himself as though he is a legend of sorts. :D :D :D
The problem with you, Shane, is that you are a known user of sox, when you deceive you are always considered a deceitful tool that can never be believed.


Just like you, deceitful liar.

LOL hearsay from a known liar like you,I have evidence of your deceit though. ;D ;D


Like I really care what loonie lefties have to say.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:23pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm:
LOL so typical of Matty, always wanting to talk  about himself as though he is a legend of sorts. :D :D :D
The problem with you, Shane, is that you are a known user of sox, when you deceive you are always considered a deceitful tool that can never be believed.


Just like you, deceitful liar.

LOL hearsay from a known liar like you,I have evidence of your deceit though. ;D ;D


Any evidence of me?

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by skippy. on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm:
LOL so typical of Matty, always wanting to talk  about himself as though he is a legend of sorts. :D :D :D
The problem with you, Shane, is that you are a known user of sox, when you deceive you are always considered a deceitful tool that can never be believed.


Just like you, deceitful liar.

LOL hearsay from a known liar like you,I have evidence of your deceit though. ;D ;D


Any evidence of me?

Me me me me me me, LOL matty, a person with a low intelligence, like you Matty, can't  hide behind sox, you are not bright enough to. In your case your over active ego always gives you away.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:42pm

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm:
LOL so typical of Matty, always wanting to talk  about himself as though he is a legend of sorts. :D :D :D
The problem with you, Shane, is that you are a known user of sox, when you deceive you are always considered a deceitful tool that can never be believed.


Just like you, deceitful liar.

LOL hearsay from a known liar like you,I have evidence of your deceit though. ;D ;D


Any evidence of me?

Me me me me me me, LOL matty, a person with a low intelligence, like you Matty, can't  hide behind sox, you are not bright enough to. In your case your over active ego always gives you away.


So you demand proof about Gillard on the other thread but condemn me without any? Double standards at play and you still haven't provided any proof. Try your best to provide any I have nothing to hide.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:48pm

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:42pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm:
LOL so typical of Matty, always wanting to talk  about himself as though he is a legend of sorts. :D :D :D
The problem with you, Shane, is that you are a known user of sox, when you deceive you are always considered a deceitful tool that can never be believed.


Just like you, deceitful liar.

LOL hearsay from a known liar like you,I have evidence of your deceit though. ;D ;D


Any evidence of me?

Me me me me me me, LOL matty, a person with a low intelligence, like you Matty, can't  hide behind sox, you are not bright enough to. In your case your over active ego always gives you away.


So you demand proof about Gillard on the other thread but condemn me without any? Double standards at play and you still haven't provided any proof. Try your best to provide any I have nothing to hide.


What Skippy engages in is cyberbullying.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:52pm

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:48pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:42pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm:
LOL so typical of Matty, always wanting to talk  about himself as though he is a legend of sorts. :D :D :D
The problem with you, Shane, is that you are a known user of sox, when you deceive you are always considered a deceitful tool that can never be believed.


Just like you, deceitful liar.

LOL hearsay from a known liar like you,I have evidence of your deceit though. ;D ;D


Any evidence of me?

Me me me me me me, LOL matty, a person with a low intelligence, like you Matty, can't  hide behind sox, you are not bright enough to. In your case your over active ego always gives you away.


So you demand proof about Gillard on the other thread but condemn me without any? Double standards at play and you still haven't provided any proof. Try your best to provide any I have nothing to hide.


What Skippy engages in is cyberbullying.


It is and I now see I am not the only one he's accused of being matty. Probably because he has no counter-argument that is his best defense. Sad.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by Shane B on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:54pm

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:52pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:48pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:42pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm:
LOL so typical of Matty, always wanting to talk  about himself as though he is a legend of sorts. :D :D :D
The problem with you, Shane, is that you are a known user of sox, when you deceive you are always considered a deceitful tool that can never be believed.


Just like you, deceitful liar.

LOL hearsay from a known liar like you,I have evidence of your deceit though. ;D ;D


Any evidence of me?

Me me me me me me, LOL matty, a person with a low intelligence, like you Matty, can't  hide behind sox, you are not bright enough to. In your case your over active ego always gives you away.


So you demand proof about Gillard on the other thread but condemn me without any? Double standards at play and you still haven't provided any proof. Try your best to provide any I have nothing to hide.


What Skippy engages in is cyberbullying.


It is and I now see I am not the only one he's accused of being matty. Probably because he has no counter-argument that is his best defense. Sad.


Its constant abuse and nothing of substance; trashes threads.

Title: Re: 61% of voters want Turnbull.
Post by sexy_beast on Nov 6th, 2012 at 4:01pm

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:54pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:52pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:48pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:42pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:33pm:

sexy_beast wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:23pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:18pm:

Shane B wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:14pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 6th, 2012 at 3:13pm:
LOL so typical of Matty, always wanting to talk  about himself as though he is a legend of sorts. :D :D :D
The problem with you, Shane, is that you are a known user of sox, when you deceive you are always considered a deceitful tool that can never be believed.


Just like you, deceitful liar.

LOL hearsay from a known liar like you,I have evidence of your deceit though. ;D ;D


Any evidence of me?

Me me me me me me, LOL matty, a person with a low intelligence, like you Matty, can't  hide behind sox, you are not bright enough to. In your case your over active ego always gives you away.


So you demand proof about Gillard on the other thread but condemn me without any? Double standards at play and you still haven't provided any proof. Try your best to provide any I have nothing to hide.


What Skippy engages in is cyberbullying.


It is and I now see I am not the only one he's accused of being matty. Probably because he has no counter-argument that is his best defense. Sad.


Its constant abuse and nothing of substance; trashes threads.


We'll have the last laugh at the next election.

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.