|
sir prince duke alevine
|
longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26 th, 2014 at 12:25pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26 th, 2014 at 12:22pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26 th, 2014 at 12:18pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26 th, 2014 at 12:12pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26 th, 2014 at 12:05pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26 th, 2014 at 11:53am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26 th, 2014 at 11:50am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26 th, 2014 at 11:46am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26 th, 2014 at 11:38am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 26 th, 2014 at 11:35am: longweekend58 wrote on Jul 26 th, 2014 at 8:58am: Even Plibersek has stated how impressed she is with Abbott and Bishops leadership and she was the #1 abbott mocker. if you can get someone like her to applaud then you know you are doing well.
Australia finally has a strong leader with balls. We haven't had one for 6 years under labor. Pilbersek said she was impressed with their action in the UN. Something you don't believe in. And he has balls? What has he done that has balls? Please, I've asked you 3 times to explain. get over it. you have been caught out think Abbott would be a weak leader and international embarrassment. he has turned out the complete opposite. accept it and move on. you can stil be free to disagree with his actions but to say he is weak and n embarrassment is stupid. The chest beating was definitely embarrasing because it achieved absolutely zero. UNless of course you can show us differently? No? Aw ;( you think and write as an apologist or worse, a coward. do you ever stand up for anything or anyone? an unarmed man stopped a tank going to Tianeman square. When you can understand why he did that, you might understand why true leaders act the way they do. So now Tony is like the unarmed man who stopped a tank going to Tianeman square?  You are an idiot of the highest order. Even in THAT example you completely show how Tony's actions did ABSOLUTELY NOTHING. Unlike the unarmed man, who confronted his aggressors, the chest beating was done to Australian media without any threat. There was NO danger to him doing so, just political advantage. There was no OUTCOME from it. Come on, keep going, this is fun as you're truly showing your nuttiness. other than cowardice, you really don't seem to have a international posture. if asked what Abbott should do you either say he should do nothing - which you would criticise or he should adopt a posture that will be utterly ineffective - which you would criticise. there is nothing he could possibly do that would make you happy. and because he knows there are cowards and clowns like you, he ignores your opinion and does what is RIGHT, something you will never understand. even now you cannot differentiate between true leadership and leadership you agree with. actually idiot I have already stated that I thought Tony and Bishop's actions to the UN were great. THAT'S LEADERSHIP. And I agreed with it. But what YOU see as leadership, beating of the chest, OPERATION BRING THEM HOME slonganeering, that ISN'T leadership. That's designed for the dumb to go "Oh look how strong he is, how much balls he has." Yet it doesn't eventuate in ANYTHING and has NO threatening outcome. So... How does it mean he has balls? Do us all a favour and stop with the stupidity. we have very different understanding of the word 'leadership'. the UN resolution that you applaud has achieved absolutely nothing - as expected. While we still should have don't it, it was never going to achieve anything and nor did it. the only things that have been successful are the ACTIONS such as sending military transport to get the bodies, sending troops and police to secure the site. This why you liked Rudd. Rudd would have done the UN thing and then thought his job was over after achieving absolutely nothing. Abbott however, chose to do something concrete and substantial. I suspect Gillard might have been not all that different. You do realise that ANY leader would send military transport to get the bodies, right? Who would you expect to get the bodies, Qantas? Fme. And you do realise that the only reason any international security team is POSSIBLE is BECAUSE of the UN RESOLUTION which gives authority for such action to be taken. It's a war zone, without authority NO security team would be possible, and if Tony decided to send our police into an unsafe zone WITHOUT some authority then rightfully we'd be calling for his blood. And again, ANY leader in this account would participate with providing personnel for an INTERNATIONAL SECURITY TEAM. That part is clear. So again... how does he have balls? Oh yeh, he tried to call Putin and tell him off. Yeh? A) the UN resolution made no such action possible. it was little more than a call for an investigation B) Australia is the only country sending an armed force to secure the site. even the dutch (naturally) didn't do that except Tony himself said the UN resolution provides the authority needed. Fme, you're a dope. How else do you think we can get police (AFP, not armed force) with guns into a war zone? Because Tony said so?  Because he has balls, right?
|
Forum
Pages: 
