# Give the Prime Minister Respect



## Garpal Gumnut (16 March 2011)

Whether you voted for or against Ms.Julia Gillard, she is our Prime Minister.

I detect a certain disrespect of her in the bipolar aspects of our media, the ABC on the Left and the Shock Jocks on the Right.

She is the legitimate leader of our Commonwealth, and her treatment by jocks of the ABC and Commercial Radio/TV is a disgrace.

We all have an opportunity to disagree with her via the ballot box, but this pursuit of her , on the one hand by left wanking trolls at the ABC and on the other by right wanking trolls chasing advertising revenue on Commercial TV/Radio, devalues us as a nation.

Let us get some perspective on the political process and not get carried away by onanists.

gg


----------



## tothemax6 (16 March 2011)

Um, but she's horrible?


----------



## springhill (16 March 2011)

I thought Gillard promised us 'No more political thread starters by gg on ASF' pre-election?
Lying b!tch.


----------



## Julia (16 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Whether you voted for or against Ms.Julia Gillard, she is our Prime Minister.
> 
> I detect a certain disrespect of her in the bipolar aspects of our media, the ABC on the Left and the Shock Jocks on the Right.
> 
> ...




And what has inspired this out of character mission of respect for someone who has done nothing to earn our respect, gg?

Unless my memory is letting me down, you are decidedly contradicting many of your previous comments about Ms Gillard.

Or perhaps (sigh) you are just a bit bored, so committed to doing a bit of stirring once again.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (16 March 2011)

Julia said:


> And what has inspired this out of character mission of respect for someone who has done nothing to earn our respect, gg?
> 
> Unless my memory is letting me down, you are decidedly contradicting many of your previous comments about Ms Gillard.
> 
> Or perhaps (sigh) you are just a bit bored, so committed to doing a bit of stirring once again.




Many reasonable assumptions Julia.

My main concern is with the Office of PM.

Once louts like the Jones' of this world, take over political stature, the less democratic our society becomes.

She may be a a dill. Whitlam and Fraser were massive dills. 

But they were Our dills and had some respect in the meeja.

Future PM's will suffer if the bollocking of this PM by low IQ jocks from the ABC and Commercial Media continues.

And we as a nation will suffer.

gg


----------



## bellenuit (16 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Whether you voted for or against Ms.Julia Gillard, she is our Prime Minister.
> 
> I detect a certain disrespect of her in the bipolar aspects of our media, the ABC on the Left and the Shock Jocks on the Right.
> 
> ...




I think it is completely un-Australian (I know - a hated pepperism) to show respect to anyone in authority just by the nature of their position.


----------



## Julia (16 March 2011)

Well, on this occasion I shall respectfully disagree with you gg.

I don't listen to Alan Jones unless it has been re-broadcast on the ABC, but am quite happy that he should hold her and her government to account.

It goes some small way to offsetting the ultra left reverence shown to the Labor government by the parliamentary press gallery and the ABC in particular.

People like Mr Jones may be philistines, but they perform a necessary role imo.


----------



## sails (16 March 2011)

Respect is usually earned...  Why should this be any different?  What has Ms Gillard actually done to earn our respect?  Lies most certainly don't help.

She wasn't elected by the people - she negotiated her way to the job by pork barrelling with tax payer funds.  I understand that the majority of Aussies did not vote for her on primary voting.  She only won 72 seats in her own right vs. the coalitions 73.  That's not a win in anybody's book.

Although ahead on the 2pp, that doesn't mean anything.  Howard won the 1998 GST election with  a several seat majority and yet the 2pp favoured labor.  It's the number of seats that normally win or lose elections.

When you assume a position or title that is not wanted, lack of respect is a common outcome. Goes with the territory...

lol...


----------



## basilio (16 March 2011)

Well I have to agree with GG on this one.  The particular point he makes is that for lots of very good reasons we should respect the* office* of PM.  In that sense the aggression and sneering of Alan Jones is not a good look.

If we were also trying to have a reasonable debate about what direction the country should be going we would focus attention on policies and policy alternatives rather than shrill diatribes with the argument Big New Tax - end of story.


----------



## Calliope (17 March 2011)

sails said:


> Respect is usually earned...  Why should this be any different?  What has Ms Gillard actually done to earn our respect?




Yes, respect has to be earned. If she can't stand the heat she should get out of the kitchen

GG, I have this picture of you like a knight in shining armour riding to the rescue of a damsel in distress. Do you know how ridiculous this makes you look. Too many sherbets perhaps?  She is a much tougher cookie than you are. She is indeed a lying treacherous rodent, and her carbon tax is founded on lies.

Incidentally, Howard copped far more abuse from his political enemies than Gillard gets.


----------



## drsmith (17 March 2011)

Good heavens GG,

You're not going to slap her tender hand as it reaches into your wallet ?


----------



## adobee (17 March 2011)

Agree with GG on this.. 
Jones needs some respect or at least manners..

Watching Q&A people were constantly calling her by her first name.. Perhaps cause she is a younger female ?

When Julia referred to Obama and Clinton she used President Obama and Secretary of state Clinton, she didnt say Barack and Hillary.. 

Good manners are free


----------



## nukz (17 March 2011)

Shes horrible... she has no idea what she's doing.

Just put a levy on everything and then carbon tax us all.... she wont make it past the next election anyway.


----------



## Mofra (17 March 2011)

Julia said:


> It goes some small way to offsetting the ultra left reverence shown to the Labor government by the parliamentary press gallery and the ABC in particular.



That is a matter of personal perspective Julia. 
Posts yesterday mentioned that Q&A was 60% left, 40% right - that is hardly a balancing act for the pro-right talkback radio/tabloid media that seem to be those most fervently clamouring to the lower depths of political "analysis".


----------



## McCoy Pauley (17 March 2011)

Julia said:


> Well, on this occasion I shall respectfully disagree with you gg.
> 
> I don't listen to Alan Jones unless it has been re-broadcast on the ABC, but am quite happy that he should hold her and her government to account.
> 
> ...




Holding a politician to account can be done without resorting to namecalling which, I fear, is an art form employed all too often by Alan Jones and his ilk in the media.  

I fervently hope that Australian media does not follow the path blazed by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News but given the concentration of media in his hands, my hope is dissipating.


----------



## Mofra (17 March 2011)

McCoy Pauley said:


> I fervently hope that Australian media does not follow the path blazed by Rupert Murdoch's Fox News but given the concentration of media in his hands, my hope is dissipating.



*shudders*

US Political commentary has already been reduced to whoever can yell the loudest over their opponent. The shrill shrieking of the talkback jocks in Australia is close to on par already.


----------



## Calliope (17 March 2011)

Mofra said:


> That is a matter of personal perspective Julia.




It certainly is. You think she has earned respect. I think that she has earned contempt.


----------



## Julia (17 March 2011)

adobee said:


> Watching Q&A people were constantly calling her by her first name.. Perhaps cause she is a younger female ?
> 
> When Julia referred to Obama and Clinton she used President Obama and Secretary of state Clinton, she didnt say Barack and Hillary..



This I do agree with.  She should not be addressed as "Julia".


----------



## Julia (17 March 2011)

Mofra said:


> That is a matter of personal perspective Julia.
> Posts yesterday mentioned that Q&A was 60% left, 40% right - that is hardly a balancing act for the pro-right talkback radio/tabloid media that seem to be those most fervently clamouring to the lower depths of political "analysis".



That was my post.  I don't think 60/40 is balanced.  In a political program, which it is, why should the audience not be 50/50 with the questions and guests balanced similarly?

Plus you have the added factor of the presenter being absolutely clearly pro government and anti liberal.  He sets the tone.


----------



## noco (17 March 2011)

GG, just likes to stir the pot. Probably had one over the eight at the Ross Island Hotel.
He has to be a good bloke! He lives in Townssssssssville.


----------



## medicowallet (17 March 2011)

Sorry GG,

In my book, respect is not determined by birthright or by station, it is earned.

I thought a lady may have had greater conviction, instead of hiding behind little white lies and deception, but unfortunately politics even turns ladies into devils.

She has lost the respect of many people who voted for her on a promise, and I think she may have done the Labor party as much damage as Mr Keating (whom I still regard as the best politician I have ever seen)


----------



## matty77 (17 March 2011)

She is an embarassement to be honest, seriously.


----------



## Mofra (17 March 2011)

Julia said:


> That was my post.  I don't think 60/40 is balanced.  In a political program, which it is, why should the audience not be 50/50 with the questions and guests balanced similarly?
> 
> Plus you have the added factor of the presenter being absolutely clearly pro government and anti liberal.  He sets the tone.



I think you have misinterpreted.
60/40 (presuming those figures are correct) would make it possibly the most balanced outlet of political discussion in Australia. 
Given the prevalence of right wing tabloid media outlets & talkback radio, anything that presents anything less that a large bias to one side balances the equation should be encouraged.

Comments about Tony Jones are, again, subjective Julia


----------



## basilio (17 March 2011)

I find myself amazed at this thread 

First GG putting up the proposition that the Prime Minister Julia Gillard show be shown respect as commensurate with the office of PM.  I think that makes perfectly reasonable sense and I'm delighted if a bit surprised that the motion comes from GG.

And then we get this torrent of "hate" mail that appears to put Julia somewhere between Attila the Hun and Adolf Hitler. (okay just a little exaggeration) Somehow the point was lost that a degree of respect to the position of PM should also extend to the person who holds that position.

Anyway I suppose on such a topsy turvy day the only thing that would be more startling would be seeing some totally out there greenie advocating nuclear power as still an appropriate way of generating power.

Oops there go the flying pigs with George Monbiot in formation.




> *Japan nuclear crisis should not carry weight in atomic energy debate Chinese nuclear power plant*
> 
> *George Monbiot: Nuclear power remains far safer than coal*. The awful events in Fukushima must not spook governments considering atomic energy




http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2011/mar/16/japan-fukushima-lessons-chernobyl


----------



## Calliope (17 March 2011)

basilio said:


> Anyway I suppose on such a topsy turvy day the only thing that would be more startling would be seeing some totally out there greenie advocating nuclear power as still an appropriate way of generating power.
> 
> Oops there go the flying pigs with George Monbiot in formation.




It must be embarrassing coming from your hero, and in your favourite newspaper.

However it is still very safe. Three thousand people are killed daily in road accidents. How many are killed daily by nuclear radiation?


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 March 2011)

Mofra said:


> I think you have misinterpreted.
> 60/40 (presuming those figures are correct) would make it possibly the most balanced outlet of political discussion in Australia.
> Given the prevalence of right wing tabloid media outlets & talkback radio, anything that presents anything less that a large bias to one side balances the equation should be encouraged.
> 
> Comments about Tony Jones are, again, subjective Julia





Given the prevalence of right wing tabloid media??? 

Firstly, let's have a look at the print media. The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age do a fine job of keeping the left heavily involved in reporting and shaping public opinion. Even The Australian announced Kevin Rudd as its Person of the Year in 2009!!! Then to top it off they announced Labor buddy Ken Henry as the Man of the Year in 2010!!! (This is probably worthy of another thread - but what were they thinking - and who will it be next year?? Bob Brown?? I'm betting on Rob Oakshott)

As for the ABC - where do we start? 

Let's look at Insiders. Barry Cassidy, Malcolm Farr, Lenore Taylor, and let's not forget David Marr do a good job of stamping out the dissenting voice of the usually lone Andrew Bolt or Piers Ackermann. Hardly skewing on the conservative side of politics!  

The there is the 7:30 Report - "Red" Kerry rarely went into bat for the Coalition. At least we have some imput from Chris Uhlmann now (perhaps the only conservative journo at the ABC - even if he doesn't fly the flag very high). 

At least when Tony Jones was on Lateline he kept his views in check somewhat. Now that he is fronting Q&A his bias towards climate changing, pro-refugee lefties is now well and truely out in the open.  

ABC Radio provides a wonderful forum for Phillip Adams and Fran Kelly to publicly voice their not so hidden agendas. Even Sunday night programming is now being used as a commercial for the Government. Last week this was being aired as a "special"......"What will Carbon Pricing mean for Australia? Europe has had a Carbon Pricing for 6 years. Find out why business not only likes it.... but demanded it.  Join us tonight, 9:00 on your ABC". With stories like this who needs paid political advertising? Now I don't mind having a story about this ...but are we really going to see the corresponding story highlighting the dangers/problems of carbon pricing??  

As for the commercial networks, we can hardly count Channel 10, as it has an audience of 132 people, 15 chooks, 3 dairy cows and a scarecrow, but let's say we do...George Negus has never been mistaken for being on the conservative side of politics. 

Over at Channel 9, Laurie Oakes is being more blinkered with age, perhaps morphing back into his old position of Labor staffer.

As for Channel 7, the chief political reporter, is none other than Mark "Riles" Riley whose sole contribution to political debate this year has been ...."**** happens". Hmmmm. Let's think about about that for a moment. Over the past 3 months we've had Abbott/Bishop infighting, No Carbon Tax/Lies/Carbon Tax, Resource tax, flood levy/no flood levy, Rudd/Gillard conflict, Oakshott/Windsor pressure, Bob Brown and the spread of the Green Agenda etc etc etc and Riley's big report was ..........."**** happens".

Which brings me back to gg's original question? Should we give the Prime Minister respect? In my opinion we should...definately, but the fault lies not with the general public but front and centre with the media and the political parties themselves. One of the most enduring (and embarrassing) images of the last election campaign was of Julia Gillard climbing aboard the media bus, laughing and flirting with Mark Riley, passing out lollies to Malcolm Farr and generally watching a bunch of journos acting like kids on a school excursion. 

Stunts like that are demeaning to the position of Prime Minister and like-wise  the journalists lose credibility. I remember at the time that both the Labour party and the media promoted the story saying that ..."it shows that Julia Gillard is a real person..... her personality came out today". Well you can't have it both ways.......you are either an ordinary person or you are the Prime Minister. The inherent respect that comes with the position of Prime Minister won't stick if the behaviour of the Prime Minster is not worthy of it.       

Duckman


----------



## Knobby22 (17 March 2011)

You can understand how school bullying occurs when you read this thread.


----------



## Calliope (17 March 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> You can understand how school bullying occurs when you read this thread.




No. Perhaps you can explain the connection.


----------



## nulla nulla (17 March 2011)

Calliope said:


> It must be embarrassing coming from your hero, and in your favourite newspaper.
> 
> However it is still very safe. Three thousand people are killed daily in road accidents. How many are killed daily by nuclear radiation?




What was the death count for the "nuclear radiation" when the bombs went off in Hiroshima and Nagasaki? What was the death count in Russia when Chernobyl had its melt down?

I guess it is a question of scale. Nuclear Power can be a safe as houses until there is one accident, 3 mile island, chernobyl and now Japan. However when the accident occurs it is a bloody disaster.  When a coal power station blows up, or a windmill generator falls over, they don't continue to be a disaster for 24 thousand years.


----------



## Knobby22 (17 March 2011)

Alan Jones bullies the prime minister.

GG says that it is wrong, I think he is also hinting for some members here to act more honourably.

Certain people set the tone here say it is right to treat the Prime Minister badly and then others do their dirty work and do worse than Allan Jones. In other word pack behaviour.

I generally vote Liberal but have found some of the threads deplorable lately and am thinking of quitting Aussie Stock Forums to which I am a founding member. I have lost a lot of respect for some members, even trainspotter, whom I like,  is now saying carbon dioxide is a cooling gas - look at dry ice as an example. I hope he was drunk when he wrote that.

You probably notice some of our moderates have shut up and probably left. 
either don't talk issues or have left. I admire Basilio who keeps trying and even cracks jokes.

You Calliope are one of the worst.

One experience I have had with you was when you got your facts wrong about what Bob Brown said.

I said you are wrong which you acknowledged and then stated that is what you know he is really thinking  and then accuse me of a hidden agenda. 

You do this to everyone who doesn't agree with you. I wouldn't want to be in a schoolground with you.


----------



## Duckman#72 (17 March 2011)

nulla nulla said:


> What was the death count in Russia when Chernobyl had its melt down?




According to Associated Professor David Wigg (Director of Clinical Radiobiology at the Royal Adelaide Hospital) as at 2004 there was a total of 56 deaths as a result of Chernobyl.  



nulla nulla said:


> When a coal power station blows up, or a windmill generator falls over, they don't continue to be a disaster for 24 thousand years.




With all due respect Nulla Nulla - why don't you goggle present day images of Hiroshima. A vibrant, modern city that you would expect to see in any Western country. Statements like ...."a disaster for 24 thousand years" is scaremongering at its best.


----------



## basilio (17 March 2011)

Interesting comments from Knobby22 on this issue and the broader questions it raises.

GG raised the issue of disrespect for the office of PM as shown by disrespect for the incumbent. The issue also encompasses how we as a democratic community explore the alternative directions we can go as a country and resolve the inevitable differences. 

The theory of a parliamentary democracy is that different political views are put up by parties, that through strong discussion/debate, perhaps an independent press and  some (relatively) impartial input from public servants and accepted authorities - respected scientists perhaps,  the public can make some sort of informed choice.  (I agree I have put a squillion qualifiers here but even as I state them I feel uncomfortable looking at the current reality)

What will degrade the final outcome will be argument based on single line responses (BIG NEW TAX) ; denigration of the opposing parties rather than  discussing the policy proposals; overdue influence of any one particular group that attempts to dominate the final outcome; and finally the destruction of the credibility and therefore input of quality, disinterested specialists. 

Knobby22 is quite right.( IMO)  to point out that current political debate has been reduced to bullying tactics. And this behavior has become part of the social/political discussion in Australia as well as USA. This forum is too often a microcosm of that behaviour.

Knobby is accurate too in pointing out that I and many other members don't waste our time any more trying to have thoughtful discussions on many big issues. I did put in a considerable effort earlier on but came to the conclusion only one side was trying to have a debate. 

*With regard to the big issues of climate change and the urgent need to create a more sustainable lifestyle before we irrevocably trash the only home we have.*. 

If anyone actually reads what historians, environmental scientists, climate scientists, geographers and many other  experts have to say it becomes abundantly clear that the way we are currently living cannot continue. It is unsustainable. It will fail the way scores of other civilizations failed when they destroyed the resource base they were living in. Except this time of course we are trashing the whole house not just one room. And yet the issue is lost under the ramblings of some million idiot celebrities and relentless consumer pump priming. And  of course the derision that is now routinely heaped on pointy headed scientists who want to spoil the party and just don't understand how fantastic and all powerful free enterprise and the market place really is.

I have been particularly amazed at how how the painstaking work of climate scientists over the past 30 years has been trashed by people who don't want to accept the results. The understandings of scientists grow as more eyes, brain power and  technology is focused on an issue. So for the last 30-40 years a once small area of science has  become far larger when questions started to arise as to whether our climate was  rapidly changing and if  humans were  in part or largely responsible.

Science now understands far better than ever before the magnitude of what is happening to our climate and thus environment. What was once a strong theory has  through painstaking research and the actual observable increases in temperature and weather swings become very, very solid.  But that hasn't stopped  the interests who would be affected by the necessary changes from deliberately creating mythical counter arguments and a litany of lies to obfuscate the obvious.

*In fact it is almost identical to the successful campaign waged by the tobacco industry against health authorities for 60 years.* Which makes sense of course because it was run by the same amoral tacticians who ran that little dupe. 

It's what happens when we allow the free market and free enterprise free rein..

 _________________________________________________________
Anyway there are still excellent qualities and value in ASF. I find the discussion on the stock issues quite invaluable and appreciate the effort many members make to bring forth quality information and tease out the sense from the nonsense with thought and grace.  And there are certainly some general discussion topics with similar input. 

Cheers


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 March 2011)

You should stop caller her a liar in the Labor Carbon Tax Lies thread GG.

But I will call her a liar in this thread if that's ok with you.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 March 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> You should stop caller her a liar in the Labor Carbon Tax Lies thread GG.
> 
> But I will call her a liar in this thread if that's ok with you.





Lol, GL , you are a thread nazi.

I can see you there with a bank of monitors, open on all threads, like a jesuitical monitor.

I, am allowed in my position as an ordinary Joe Blow ( scuse me Joe ) to call her a liar online, when in my opinion, and it is just opinion, I believe so.

The main stream media MSM have a duty to report under the ethics of journalism, and this is what I believe has been broached.

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> Lol, GL , you are a thread nazi.




Yes, I do observe your postings GG. But I'm not that critical mate. 

I only don the Nazi gear when partying-on in shady establishments with 
Formula One boss Max Mosley or going to parties with certain royals in the UK. 

Usually, that's how I pre-occupy my time. ASF is just a hobby!  

P.S. Never been to the UK in my life.

And it is good to know that you finally had that banana removed from your ear.:bananasmi


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2011)

basilio takes the issue of respect for the office of PM (for what it's worth) and turns it to a rant of his/her personal take on climate science and the socialist-capitalist divide.

Nice OT rant exposing a raging bias.

Let's keep it on topic eh? (i.e. the office of PM) 

Take your climate and political arguments to the appropriate thread please.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 March 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> Yes, I do observe your postings GG. But I'm not that critical mate.
> 
> I only don the Nazi gear when partying-on in shady establishments with
> Formula One boss Max Mosley or going to parties with certain royals.
> And it is good to know that you finally had that banana removed from your ear.:bananasmi




I knew we had met before. Are you B1, B2, or B3.?

I do like Max and Windsor/Battenberg parties.

Let's not take Julia or Tony. 

gg


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I knew we had met before. Are you B1, B2, or B3.?




I'm not a political lobbyist from North Queensland but have moved plenty of truckloads of North Queensland Sugar in my time. Does that count?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 March 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> I'm not a political lobbyist from North Queensland but have moved plenty of truckloads of North Queensland Sugar in my time. Does that count?




I bow before thee, anyone who can drag a doubleB and a dog, has my respeck.

Now back to Julia's problems with the meeja.

Sometimes small dicks like the 2 jones' get above themselves and threads like these bring them back to earth.

Do not underestimate the power of the ordinary person to rein in loose cannons of the right and left.

She is our PM, and for publications and broadcasts that may be read or seen by overseas interests, there needs to be an element of respect for our Prime Minister.

gg


----------



## basilio (17 March 2011)

wayneL said:


> basilio takes the issue of respect for the office of PM (for what it's worth) and turns it to a rant of his/her personal take on climate science and the socialist-capitalist divide.
> 
> Nice OT rant exposing a raging bias.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the direction Wayne. I'll give it the respect it deserves.
Much of my response was directed to the issue of how we do discussion and debates of ideas. Knobby was highlighting the fact that currently  too many discussion on this forum have disintegrated into simplistic bullying. I was expanding that into  looking at how our society in general is going in that direction and used a couple of examples. 

*By the way I don't accept my discussions were a "rant" and if we are trying to keep this civil can you please retract that comment. It was unnecessary and   belittling .
*


----------



## medicowallet (17 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> The main stream media MSM have a duty to report under the ethics of journalism, and this is what I believe has been broached.
> 
> gg




This is true. Perhaps said journalists are not competent enough to pressure a PM without getting aggressive.

Unfortunately the shock jocks get paid millions to behave like fools for their listeners. However, if Juliar did not go back on her word, then perhaps the shock jocks would not have so much ammunition to misbehave with.


----------



## GumbyLearner (17 March 2011)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> I bow before thee, anyone who can drag a doubleB and a dog, has my respeck.




No mate. I'm not talking about driving rigs. I'm talking about loading 50 kilogram bags of sugar on your head all day and stacked into 90 foot containers.

Save your bows for your friends!


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 March 2011)

GumbyLearner said:


> No mate. I'm not talking about driving rigs. I'm talking about loading 50 kilogram bags of sugar on your head all day and stacked into 90 foot containers.
> 
> Save your bows for your friends!




Sweet.

gg


----------



## wayneL (17 March 2011)

basilio said:


> *By the way I don't accept my discussions were a "rant" and if we are trying to keep this civil can you please retract that comment. It was unnecessary and   belittling .
> *





No.

As one prone to the occasional  (ok frequent) rant, I recognize a rant when I see one.

Rants are fine BTW... in the right place.


----------



## Sean K (17 March 2011)

Wow, it's like question time in here!  

In the military, you respect the rank, not the person. It's one of the few institutions that it's appropriate and very well justified. Respect and loyalty up and down the chain of command.

In a democracy, I'm not so sure.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 March 2011)

Ladies and Gents

Ego

Id

Superego

Lest we forget.

gg


----------



## IFocus (17 March 2011)

The likes of Jones and co are simply dogs chasing dollars and their inflated egos. Unfortunately they are surrounded by the usually howling pack helping them to achieve both.

They care little about public standards, they reinforce bad behavior and bigoted standards in the community as being OK.

I don't mind anyone having a shot at any politician on any subject and good luck if they trap them but the crude rudeness that's been displayed along with the hate message has not historically been a part of the Australian media and nor should it be. 

Its interesting reading the bias claims, being socially left of the communist party I fail to see basis of the claims. I think that most of the commentary is actually fairly central with very few who are genuinely left.


----------



## drsmith (17 March 2011)

Respect should be given where respect is due.

If Ross Garnaut's latest suggestion gets up, 1/2 of what gets taken from our wallets we will get back as tax cuts (net of social redistribution of course) and only the other half will be flushed down the toilet.


----------



## Julia (17 March 2011)

Mofra said:


> I think you have misinterpreted.
> 60/40 (presuming those figures are correct) would make it possibly the most balanced outlet of political discussion in Australia.
> Given the prevalence of right wing tabloid media outlets & talkback radio, anything that presents anything less that a large bias to one side balances the equation should be encouraged.
> 
> Comments about Tony Jones are, again, subjective Julia



Mofra, my point was not at all about comparing Q & A with any other programs or any other media.  It was purely about the balance on one television program which purports to offer balanced political views.  Unless both the audience and the questions display such a 50/50 balance, the program is biased and unbalanced in my view, especially with Tony Jones's clear bias to the Left.

It is disingenuous of you (and not worthy of you as the reasonable person you are) to turn this into a comparison with the right wing media.

Duckman has more than adequately addressed this in his well thought out post.



> One of the most enduring (and embarrassing) images of the last election campaign was of Julia Gillard climbing aboard the media bus, laughing and flirting with Mark Riley, passing out lollies to Malcolm Farr and generally watching a bunch of journos acting like kids on a school excursion.
> 
> Stunts like that are demeaning to the position of Prime Minister and like-wise  the journalists lose credibility. I remember at the time that both the Labour party and the media promoted the story saying that ..."it shows that Julia Gillard is a real person..... her personality came out today". Well you can't have it both ways.......you are either an ordinary person or you are the Prime Minister. The inherent respect that comes with the position of Prime Minister won't stick if the behaviour of the Prime Minster is not worthy of it.
> 
> Duckman



Good demonstration of the point, Duckman.  You'd never have seen John Howard or Paul Keating clowning around on a media bus.





Knobby22 said:


> You can understand how school bullying occurs when you read this thread.



Oh, Knobby, how about a little objectivity?   What about all the bullying that goes on all the time from the climate change enthusiasts toward anyone who dares to raise a question about it?  Where they are scornfully labelled in the most derisive tones 'climate change deniers' in a tone reminiscent of the "holocaust deniers".

This is bullying of the worst order.




Knobby22 said:


> Alan Jones bullies the prime minister.
> 
> GG says that it is wrong, I think he is also hinting for some members here to act more honourably.



Might be good to let gg speak for himself, don't you think?



> Certain people set the tone here say it is right to treat the Prime Minister badly and then others do their dirty work and do worse than Allan Jones. In other word pack behaviour.



Why do you feel the need to label anyone on this forum who happens to have an opinion different from your own, and who happens to agree with some other members, with  pejorative and critical terminology?

Why not just accept that not everyone will share your point of view and be gracious enough to refrain from slurring those who disagree.

I don't agree with you, Knobby, on many issues.  But I don't find it necessary to personalise my disagreement and make pejorative comments about you.




basilio said:


> Knobby22 is quite right.( IMO)  to point out that current political debate has been reduced to bullying tactics. And this behavior has become part of the social/political discussion in Australia as well as USA. This forum is too often a microcosm of that behaviour.



Basilio, your own politics are well known on this forum, particularly with regard to climate.  I agree with Wayne that it's disappointing that you have turned the discussion on respect for the PM to your own hobby horse.

And hopefully you might consider my remarks to Knobby above re bullying.
You climate change devotees have been taking the moral high ground over any one who raises any questions, who even claims an agnostic position, as "deniers" for a long time now.  Imo that is not being prepared to engage in any debate.  It is rather the adoption of the view that anyone who fails to wholeheartedly agree with you is bad, unreasonable, unthinking, and amoral.

Since you have brought the whole subject up again, in this relatively unrelated thread, perhaps you would be good enough to answer the question to which I've been seeking an answer for some time, i.e. what exactly will be the result on the climate of Australia's adopting a carbon tax, especially in the face of most of the rest of the world, including the greatest emitters, failing to do?

And just on the subject of respect for the Prime Minister, why did she say on Q & A that China are closing down a coal fired power station every week, without adding that they are replacing these with more coal fired power stations in even greater number which have better technology?

Isn't that her own form of bullying and misrepresentation?

Why would I respect her for such manipulative comments?



> Knobby is accurate too in pointing out that I and many other members don't waste our time any more trying to have thoughtful discussions on many big issues. I did put in a considerable effort earlier on but came to the conclusion only one side was trying to have a debate.



No, Basilio, I don't think you can reasonably claim only one side was trying to have a debate just because not everyone agreed with you.

We are all entitled to hold the views we do.  I respect that you believe what you do.
Why can you not respect that - in the absence of a personal capacity to make informed judgements about the science on either side - I take an agnostic view, and resent being criticised for this?




> *With regard to the big issues of climate change and the urgent need to create a more sustainable lifestyle before we irrevocably trash the only home we have.*.
> 
> If anyone actually reads what historians, environmental scientists, climate scientists, geographers and many other  experts have to say it becomes abundantly clear that the way we are currently living cannot continue. It is unsustainable. It will fail the way scores of other civilizations failed when they destroyed the resource base they were living in. Except this time of course we are trashing the whole house not just one room. And yet the issue is lost under the ramblings of some million idiot celebrities and relentless consumer pump priming.



The 'ramblings of some million idiot celebrities and relentless consumer pump priming", yet you talk of 'bullying' by others when you use language like this???
Just think about it.
You sound like a member of a cult with all the uncritical devotion this implies.


----------



## sails (17 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> ...I don't mind anyone having a shot at any politician on any subject and good luck if they trap them but the crude rudeness that's been displayed along with the hate message has not historically been a part of the Australian media and nor should it be.
> 
> Its interesting reading the bias claims, being socially left of the communist party I fail to see basis of the claims. I think that most of the commentary is actually fairly central with very few who are genuinely left.




Now, if Abbott had got in as PM, I would imagine the lefties would be slinging insults left, right and centre.  Howard copped a lot of ribbing and name calling too.   So why should it be any different to a feminist PM?  Feminists want to be seen as equal to men, so why would Ms Gillard want to be treated differently?

And wasn't Ms Gillard herself a member of the communist party?  We understand she has links to fabian and her methods of ruling the people does seem to fit in with fabian ideals. 

There is nothing democratic that I can see about the labor party when the PM can make unilateral decisions and the rest of the party members don't necessarily have a say.


----------



## Calliope (17 March 2011)

basilio said:


> Knobby was highlighting the fact that currently  too many discussion on this forum have disintegrated into simplistic bullying. I was expanding that into  looking at how our society in general is going in that direction and used a couple of examples.




Poor old Knobby thinks I was bullying him. Apparently anyone who disagrees with him is a bully. I am at a loss to see what this has do do with this thread. And basillo your posts are mainly nagging and preaching. Neither you nor Knobby have advanced any reason why Ms Gillard should be treated with respect.

It is difficult to be respectful of the office of PM when Gillard only holds the office by betraying the previous PM and with the support of self-serving independents who have betrayed their electorates.

I suggest you both read and digest Julia's post (two back). You might learn some manners.


----------



## GumbyLearner (18 March 2011)

This thread is so scary. 

I'm off to my 50kg on the back deal, with Hughie Williams approval!

In the past I just wanted to graduate. But now that I realize that cats-bum-mouth dudes like Kevin Rudd couldn't give a ****, and Julia Gillard couldn't care less either. 

Bring it?  We are here for the taking.


----------



## Logique (18 March 2011)

sails said:


> ...Now, if Abbott had got in as PM, I would imagine the lefties would be slinging insults left, right and centre.  Howard copped a lot of ribbing and name calling too. So why should it be any different to a feminist PM?  Feminists want to be seen as equal to men, so why would Ms Gillard want to be treated differentlly?...



It's a little bit - what goes around comes around. The far Left had a visceral and unrelenting hatred of John Howard, and paid out on him mercilessly. Sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but if you step up to the plate in federal politics, that's how it goes down.

Gillard can sob into her air travel Gold Pass and lifelong pension.


----------



## noco (18 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> The likes of Jones and co are simply dogs chasing dollars and their inflated egos. Unfortunately they are surrounded by the usually howling pack helping them to achieve both.
> 
> They care little about public standards, they reinforce bad behavior and bigoted standards in the community as being OK.
> 
> ...




Which Jones are you talking about? Tony Jones is so biased towards the sociaist left, he would leave Alan Jones for dead.


----------



## noco (18 March 2011)

drsmith said:


> Respect should be given where respect is due.
> 
> If Ross Garnaut's latest suggestion gets up, 1/2 of what gets taken from our wallets we will get back as tax cuts (net of social redistribution of course) and only the other half will be flushed down the toilet.




And what about all the extra bureaucrats who will be required to administer such a system. We need less not more.


----------



## Calliope (18 March 2011)

Annabel Crabbe said in The Drum on Feb 8;



> Why do we usually forgive new prime ministers so much? Because we chose them, generally, and just as a proud new car owner steadfastly refuses to acknowledge the slight heaviness of the vehicle's steering or the idiotic tininess of its glovebox, so do we tend to give our new PMs the benefit of the doubt, for the first year or two.
> 
> *But Julia Gillard is in a different position. First appointed to the prime ministership by Caucus and then reappointed, post-election, by a misshapen committee of independents, she does not enjoy the subtle protection of a sentimental bond with her electors.*
> 
> She is a new prime minister, without that "New Prime Minister" smell.



(my bolds)

She became PM under false pretences and lies, and is fair game.


----------



## IFocus (18 March 2011)

Logique said:


> It's a little bit - what goes around comes around. The far Left had a visceral and unrelenting hatred of John Howard, and paid out on him mercilessly. Sure, two wrongs don't make a right, but if you step up to the plate in federal politics, that's how it goes down.
> 
> Gillard can sob into her air travel Gold Pass and lifelong pension.




Howard was never ever as I recall treated with the sheer arrogance and contempt by any sections of the media that the RW shock jocks do to Gillard. 

Fact is they perpetrate haft truths and lies


----------



## sails (18 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Howard was never ever as I recall treated with the sheer arrogance and contempt by any sections of the media that the RW shock jocks do to Gillard.
> 
> Fact is they perpetrate haft truths and lies




IMO, Ms Gillard has asked for it to a large degree with her seeming contempt of the Australian people.  Nobody likes to being lied to so arrogantly.  And that's not a half truth - Ms Gillard has admitted that she lied to the people.

Carbon tax may well have a huge ripple effect, IMO.  It's not a little promise she has broken, it's potentially a big one which could hurt the working people and families of Australia.

IMO, the only way she can redeem even a little credibility would be to honour Swan's promise of "not in this term" and let the people decide. Surely, that is the decent thing to do.


----------



## drsmith (18 March 2011)

sails said:


> IMO, the only way she can redeem even a little credibility would be to honour Swan's promise of "not in this term" and let the people decide. Surely, that is the decent thing to do.



It may be the decent thing to do, but decency is beyond the Greens that Labor is in bed with.


----------



## Calliope (18 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Fact is they perpetrate haft truths and lies




Nobody has to perpetrate haft truths and lies about Gillard, She does that all by herself.


----------



## doogie_goes_off (18 March 2011)

Let her hang herself out with her weasel words. No tax, now tax. It's that simple, she's not in a corner, she could go to re-election, get some gumption and get on with it and let us judge the willing coalition that holds us to ransom, double dissolution threat by Bob Brown may be driving this and our pale faced liar doesn't have the decency to tell us. Don't get me wrong she has shown leadership qualities, just not real ones that would make me go back to voting for her party. Make Steve Smith labor leader and I'll think about it. Rudd unfortunately failed, but has fallen on his feet, popular - just not consultative enough. Seems to be more talent in the Libs, my favour is with Turnbull although public arrogance/affluence seems to dog the public perception of him. We are short of talent, just need someone to step up. A rudd rebirth? A Hewson return  Where are the back room intellects, your Laurie Breretons, John Buttons, Nick Minchims etc - Someone has to stand up, take charge and deliver an elected reform agenda.


----------



## IFocus (18 March 2011)

sails said:


> IMO, Ms Gillard has asked for it to a large degree with her seeming contempt of the Australian people.  Nobody likes to being lied to so arrogantly.  And that's not a half truth - Ms Gillard has admitted that she lied to the people.
> 
> Carbon tax may well have a huge ripple effect, IMO.  It's not a little promise she has broken, it's potentially a big one which could hurt the working people and families of Australia.
> 
> IMO, the only way she can redeem even a little credibility would be to honour Swan's promise of "not in this term" and let the people decide. Surely, that is the decent thing to do.





Again there is no reason for bad behavior from either politicians or so called media. 

The continued projection of hate into the debates i.e. Tea Party rubbish is an abomination.

Again the opposition to political parties or various leaders positions is fine.

To extend the example to the extreme I would hate to think people think its OK to bash your wife because she asked for it. 

Where is the line that it stops?


----------



## wayneL (19 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Howard was never ever as I recall treated with the sheer arrogance and contempt by any sections of the media that the RW shock jocks do to Gillard.




LOL

Well of course not! With your cognitive biases (which we all have), you probably thought is was fair comment, just like many people current treatment of Gillard is fair comment.

The fact is, and I was certainly NOT a fan of the coalition at the end, Johnny Rotten copped it as good and as hard as J. Dullard is now.


----------



## Calliope (19 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> Where is the line that it stops?




Criticism of bad leaders has nothing to do with wife bashing.

You said in a previous post you said; 

*"Its interesting reading the bias claims, being socially left of the communist party I fail to see basis of the claims." *

Under your preferred system of government criticising your leader is a much more dangerous activity than wife bashing.


----------



## Spongle (19 March 2011)

Politicians?

Foolish ppl who may have begun with noble and altruistic intentions but got corrupted along the way by the nature of thier work.

Hard working and detemined ppl with intelligence only slightly above average... i want people with execptional minds to run the country not those that won all the debate's in school.

Increase taxes for the rich... hell, increase them for everyone. Better welfare, heathcare and education please.


----------



## wayneL (19 March 2011)

Spongle said:


> Politicians?
> 
> Foolish ppl who may have begun with noble and altruistic intentions but got corrupted along the way by the nature of thier work.
> 
> ...




Lets keep this on topic regarding respect for the office of PM, rather than deviating off onto politicians in general and statements of ideology. 

There are plenty of other threads for that.


----------



## IFocus (19 March 2011)

wayneL said:


> LOL
> 
> Well of course not! With your cognitive biases (which we all have), you probably thought is was fair comment, just like many people current treatment of Gillard is fair comment.
> 
> The fact is, and I was certainly NOT a fan of the coalition at the end, Johnny Rotten copped it as good and as hard as J. Dullard is now.





Howard was questioned to death and harassed, as was Keating, Hawke, Fraser etc which isnt the question at less thats what I thought.

But none of them faced the hate message / arrogance from shock jocks and etc. 

In parliament the gloves are always off as should be the case and both sides give as good as they get.

When did Howard's name get changed to some form of liar on air by the media while being interviewed?

There was certainly plenty of material available as there is for any prime minister.


----------



## drsmith (19 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> When did Howard's name get changed to some form of liar on air by the media while being interviewed?



I'll suggest he would have had he tried to introduce a GST after saying never ever in the leadup to the 96 election without taking it as as his platform to the 98 election.


----------



## wayneL (19 March 2011)

IFocus said:


> But none of them faced the hate message / arrogance from shock jocks and etc.




Mate I wouldn't give much credence to the "shock jocks".

They preach to the converted largely, as do the Fabian trained public broadcasters (though they are ever so slightly more subtle).

Independent thinkers will agree or disagree based on the merits of the argument; both RW shock jocks and Fabian gradualist propagandists on the ABC will bring up good points worthy of consideration by both sides.

Both sides worry that the public are merely sycophants of the opposing jock, though in my experience, although many are beholden to their BS ideology, most are capable of critical evaluation.


----------



## Julia (19 March 2011)

wayneL said:


> Both sides worry that the public are merely sycophants of the opposing jock, though in my experience, although many are beholden to their BS ideology, most are capable of critical evaluation.



I agree.  It's one of the most foolish of characteristics that both the media and the politicians themselves fail to give the overall public credit for their capacity to see through them and to understand their motives for what they are.


----------



## Spongle (19 March 2011)

wayneL said:


> Lets keep this on topic regarding respect for the office of PM, rather than deviating off onto politicians in general and statements of ideology.
> 
> There are plenty of other threads for that.




ok fair enough

I'll have respect for a PM or any minister, counciller etc. that does a good job at running a country, state, bourough, city, town whatever and I'm sure it's not easy.

I won't have respect for the office of PM just because it is the office of PM and that goes for any position held by anyone anywhere for anything... unless you have your masters in aromatic chemistry or something


----------

