# ABC Q&A



## Aussiejeff (20 February 2009)

Well, the new series of Auntie's *Q & A* has started with a bang.

Last night's opening gambit might well have been sub-titled _"Bionic Bulldog Savages Swan"_. 

The two protagonists pretty well hogged the entire proceedings - not unsurprisingly - and I thought the Bulldog actually did a good job considering the flak around the Costello issue. 

IMO he has definitely raised the bar for the Coalition regarding it being able to more credibly debate the economic performance of the KRuddite Party, now that the hapless and totally inept Ms Bishop has slunk off to the relative anonimity of "Foreign Affairs". 

Fair dinkum, I was ROTFLMAO like the rest of the audience at Swannie's repeated use of "_substantial_" as a descriptor of whatever the government is trying to do, ie "*substantial* reforms", "*substantial* economic stimulus", "*substantial* boost for jobs" etc, etc, etc. What a *substantial* goose he is!  

Next Program's panellists

    * Bill Shorten - Labor's Parliamentary Secretary for Disabilities
    * Christopher Pyne - Opposition frontbencher
    * Jonathan Biggins - Writer and actor
    * Sabrina Houssami - Former Miss World Australia

Not sure what Sabrina will bring to the en-mass debate?


----------



## beerwm (20 February 2009)

*Re: ABC QANDA*

Watched it last night also,

Really impressed with how Joe Hockey performed, Was equally suprised to see the audience laughing whenever Swan opened his mouth considering the usual Labour bias of Q&A.

Thought the AWU rep was an absolute joke personally, so what if you're going to ramp up production for the insulation batts? whats going to happen once the Gov's insulation package runs out..... you just have more people with dead ends.

job rise.. job free-fall


----------



## Happy (20 February 2009)

*Re: ABC QANDA*



Aussiejeff said:


> Well, the new series of Auntie's *Q & A* has started with a bang.
> 
> Last night's opening gambit might well have been sub-titled _"Bionic Bulldog Savages Swan"_.
> 
> ..




I was more inclined to call it: *Swan was substantially shown how not to play Hockey*

But to me it was just an extension of parliamentary points scoring debate, of who is sharper and who can score cheap points.
Good for show, not good for Australia.

This substantial percentage of Batts made in Australia reminded me of 2 litres bottle of 3 fruit juices.

Turned bottle around and 1st juice (apple juice of course) was 97%, second mere 1% and 3rd juice dismal 0.5%
They did not lie, but such a small percentages doesn’t deserve the title on the front of bottle, but at least we had black and white percentages, Mr Swan was not able to say what his *substantial *represented.


----------



## roland (15 February 2010)

*Q&A on ABC Question Setup*

Not sure if anyone was/is watching - but gee, what an absolute obvious question setup from an audience member to Belinda whatever her name is, gave the guest panelist a chance to promote her website and read off a prepared statement and move the Q&A episode onto her own topic.

I have lost some respect for this program.....


----------



## matty77 (16 February 2010)

*Re: Q&A on ABC Question Setup*

Who was the guy sitting on the far right hand side last night? Everytime he spoke it sounded like utter garbage.


----------



## FPSS (16 February 2010)

Christopher Pyne - Opposition frontbencher always tends to get chewed up by Bill Shorten.... I watched the four corners program too on disabilities... my goodness it is depressing. Bill Shorten speaks well and is very clever to get around questions... so it should be another entertaining segment.


----------



## freddy2 (16 February 2010)

*Re: Q&A on ABC Question Setup*



matty77 said:


> Who was the guy sitting on the far right hand side last night? Everytime he spoke it sounded like utter garbage.




Satyajit Das knew more about economics and finance than the whole of the Q and A panel and audience combined. I found his remarks interesting, clear and insightful.


----------



## Duckman#72 (15 March 2010)

Is Catherine Deveny the most annoying panelist _ever_ on Q & A!???!!

She certainly gets my vote. 

Duckman


----------



## Duckman#72 (16 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Is Catherine Deveny the most annoying panelist _ever_ on Q & A!???!!
> 
> She certainly gets my vote.
> 
> Duckman




More on our friend Catherine. Below is an extract of what she tweeted during the Q&A show last night concerning fellow panelist Peter Dutton:

_*Had nightmare they sat me next to a chinless, ex QLD cop with a face of a rapist who refused to go to the stolen generation apology #qanda*_

Does anything more need to be said? 

Duckman


----------



## Buddy (16 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> More on our friend Catherine. Below is an extract of what she tweeted during the Q&A show last night concerning fellow panelist Peter Dutton:
> 
> _*Had nightmare they sat me next to a chinless, ex QLD cop with a face of a rapist who refused to go to the stolen generation apology #qanda*_
> 
> ...




Was she the bird dressed in red that had a pained look on her face anytime someone said something that she disagreed with? Strange piece of work, very intolerant, should stick to comedy. That's her trade isn't it? I wouldn't know if she is funny though.


----------



## Julia (16 March 2010)

I didn't see last night's programme but did see this woman on a previous Q & A.
Given her woeful performance on that occasion, I'm surprised she was invited back.


----------



## chops_a_must (16 March 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> More on our friend Catherine. Below is an extract of what she tweeted during the Q&A show last night concerning fellow panelist Peter Dutton:
> 
> _*Had nightmare they sat me next to a chinless, ex QLD cop with a face of a rapist who refused to go to the stolen generation apology #qanda*_
> 
> ...




Well, I think she is rightfully embarassed by being on the same side of politics as Dutton. The guy is an utter moron. No wonder he lost pre-selection.

There were three cringe worthy panelists last night. Shorten just kept quiet at most opportunities and Aly is just brilliant.


----------



## Duckman#72 (16 March 2010)

chops_a_must said:


> Well, I think she is rightfully embarassed by being on the same side of politics as Dutton.
> 
> There were three cringe worthy panelists last night. Shorten just kept quiet at most opportunities and Aly is just brilliant.




Same side of politics? 

Don't you mean same side of the panel? Dutton and Deveny are polar opposites on almost every issue. Deveny couldn't even bring herself to comment favourably on Abbott's paid parental care.

It certainly wasn't the best Q&A. Not many "chewie" issues were spoken about. 

I'm glad apologising to indigenious Australians made Deveny feel so good about herself. At least it wasn't just a totally symbolic gesture that didn't provide any practical assistance to Aboriginal people. Some good has come of it.

Duckman


----------



## DB008 (5 June 2012)

Did anybody catch last nights episode?

Barnaby Joyce was a hoot. I haven't really paid much attention to him previously. 
Simon Crean came off like an idiot, well and truly. 

So, will the road that was mentioned (Toowoomba) road get fixed? Simon Crean had some excuse for it, the crowd road him, LOL! 


Link to last nights episode here


----------



## joea (5 June 2012)

DB008 said:


> Did anybody catch last nights episode?
> 
> Barnaby Joyce was a hoot. I haven't really paid much attention to him previously.
> Simon Crean came off like an idiot, well and truly.
> ...




Did you catch the comment from Barnaby, about leaving $680 million in the till for the upgrade, but he said it "walked"!!:swear:

I almost switched over when Milne started, but I persevered and glad I did.
joea


----------



## dutchie (5 June 2012)

From Pickering...


----------



## DB008 (5 June 2012)

Yes, Julia is on QandA next week. This will be interesting.


----------



## Logique (3 July 2012)

That was freaky seeing Simon Sheikh's head gradually drop to the desk and stay there. I do sympathize with him, I often feel the same when listening to Greg Combet. Simon is ok, it was just the flu.
Repeat at 12:30pm today.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (3 July 2012)

Logique said:


> That was freaky seeing Simon Sheikh's head gradually drop to the desk and stay there. I do sympathize with him, I often feel the same when listening to Greg Combet. Simon is ok, it was just the flu.
> Repeat at 12:30pm today.




Sophie Mirabella, the stupid b1tch, just sat there staring at him.


----------



## dutchie (3 July 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Sophie Mirabella, the stupid b1tch, just sat there staring at him.




It looked a bit awkward to say the least.


----------



## Happy (3 July 2012)

If it was bout of flu, he should have stayed home and not visit such a big forum and spread the germs!

Selfish and irresponsible.


----------



## Aussiejeff (3 July 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Sophie Mirabella, the stupid b1tch, just sat there staring at him.




Re-run the tape. She was taken aback. Everyone was, except for a handful of crew and/or front row audience members. In fact, watch closely and she placed her hand on him TWICE and asked if he was ok. 

Meanwhile, did compere Tony Jones jump to action?? Nope.

Hmmm. Metinks some unnecessary Sophie bashing here, from the left.

Move along.


----------



## drsmith (3 July 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> Sophie Mirabella, the stupid b1tch, just sat there staring at him.



If you watched the SMH version, it's been cut and pasted to look worse for Sophie Mirabella than it was.

http://www.smh.com.au/entertainment...when-qa-panellist-fainted-20120702-21dks.html

I saw it as it happened and Greg Combet was also suprised at first as evidenced by his initial physical reaction (similar to Sophie) and his words,



> I'm not quiet sure what Simon's doing there.




This audio has been cut from the SMH video version. 

Also note that Sophie had placed her arm on Simon's back before Greg got to his side. Her only sin (if one wants to call it that) was that she took a little longer to catch on than Greg.

Below is how it happened, unedited.



The ABC at least has an unedited version on the web.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-07-02/simon-shiekh-collapses-during-qanda/4105964


----------



## Julia (3 July 2012)

Thanks for posting the video, drsmith.  I didn't see the program last night.
I can't see why Sophie Mirabella is being singled out for criticism.

Fairly clearly, everyone was taken aback.  It's very easy to be critical when we know in retrospect what happened.

I don't know what Ms Mirabella offers to the Coalition's front bench.  I've never seen or heard her distinguish  herself in any positive manner.

But I don't think in this instance she should be pilloried any more than any other panel member.
If anyone should be responsible in such a situation, surely it would be the floor manager?


----------



## drsmith (3 July 2012)

Julia said:


> I don't know what Ms Mirabella offers to the Coalition's front bench.  I've never seen or heard her distinguish  herself in any positive manner.



From what I saw last night I would agree. She made a couple of good points but was too often out of her depth and was far too unconvincing with her subsequent standard lines.

Lenore Taylor from her performance should just join the Labor Party and Grahame Morris was little more than a waste of space. Greg Combet was impressive relative to Sophie Mirabella. 

The Coalition really want to get some of their more articulate members on the panel if they want to impress on this show.

The SMH's bias with the video I suspect will be on Bolt's under the radar segment on his show next Sunday.


----------



## sails (3 July 2012)

It seems that Simon Sheihk has no problem with Mirabella - a message below from the Deputy Director @ GetUp:



> Andrew, Sam from GetUp here. I agree: Sophie Mirabella deserves no criticism for her reaction. She kindly sent a message to Simon today to wish him well, which he really appreciated. No hard feelings. And I think we can all agree that Craig Emerson’s Whyalla video is the most hilarious press conference we’ve ever seen. We really thought it was an impersonator. Seems not. Oh dear. - Sam, Deputy Director @ GetUp.




From Bolt's Blog: http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...n/comments/lets_laugh_at_the_liberal_instead/


----------



## drsmith (3 July 2012)

> No hard feelings.




That's a bit of a backhander.


----------



## Logique (4 July 2012)

To _The Age_ it warranted both a front page picture and article, aimed squarely at Mirabella.  

Whereas the vaudeville routine by Minister Emerson, well that was buried on page 9, quietly hushed up.

There's your balanced editorial policy in action.


----------



## Eager (4 July 2012)

I don't like Mirabella; never have. In my opinion she is a twit and is regularly invited on the show as (a) a gesture of tokenism, and (b) a punching bag. Having said that, it is unfair to criticise her for her paralysis on Q & A after Sheikh's head hit the desk. None of us could categorically state how we would react in the same position.

Suggestions that she deliberately chose not to react should be met with equal disdain as suggestions that Combet was acting opportunistically in front of ther cameras by rushing to Sheikh's aid - and I'm actually amazed (but at the same time very pleased) that that aspect hasn't been bandied around here yet.


----------



## Boggo (4 July 2012)

Looks like the UK papers don't think much of her either...
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ellow-TV-panelist-collapsed--did-nothing.html


----------



## wayneL (4 July 2012)

Eager said:


> I don't like Mirabella; never have. In my opinion she is a twit and is regularly invited on the show as (a) a gesture of tokenism, and (b) a punching bag. Having said that, it is unfair to criticise her for her paralysis on Q & A after Sheikh's head hit the desk. None of us could categorically state how we would react in the same position.
> 
> Suggestions that she deliberately chose not to react should be met with equal disdain as suggestions that Combet was acting opportunistically in front of ther cameras by rushing to Sheikh's aid -



Never heard of Mirabella and wouldn't know if she is right, left or center; but totally agree. I can quite imagine being like a deer in the headlights for a brief time until i worked out what was happening.



> and I'm actually amazed (but at the same time very pleased) that that aspect hasn't been bandied around here yet.




I doubt that it will. People of the center-center/right rarely use 'human' moments for political advantage IME.

This is a pumpkin from a pimple.... paaaaaathetic reportage IMO.


----------



## IFocus (4 July 2012)

drsmith said:


> From what I saw last night I would agree. She made a couple of good points but was too often out of her depth and was far too unconvincing with her subsequent standard lines.
> 
> Lenore Taylor from her performance should just join the Labor Party and Grahame Morris was little more than a waste of space. Greg Combet was impressive relative to Sophie Mirabella.
> 
> ...




Sophie Mirabella is part of the right wing loony support for Abbott along with a few other empty heads so she ain't going no where.

Shame plenty of real talent on the outer ministry and back bench.


----------



## IFocus (4 July 2012)

wayneL said:


> Never heard of Mirabella and wouldn't know if she is right, left or center; but totally agree. I can quite imagine being like a deer in the headlights for a brief time until i worked out what was happening.




She is right wing empty headed and a total drop kick........right up your alley.


----------



## So_Cynical (4 July 2012)

Boggo said:


> Looks like the UK papers don't think much of her either...
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ellow-TV-panelist-collapsed--did-nothing.html




Those stills...just not a good look the do nothing look, still she is a prominent member of the noalition, an organization famous for doing nothing so i suppose its understandable.


----------



## Logique (4 July 2012)

Eager said:


> I don't like Mirabella; never have. In my opinion she is a twit and is regularly invited on the show as (a) a gesture of tokenism, and (b) a punching bag. Having said that, it is unfair to criticise her for her paralysis on Q & A after Sheikh's head hit the desk. None of us could categorically state how we would react in the same position.
> 
> Suggestions that she deliberately chose not to react should be met with equal disdain as suggestions that Combet was acting opportunistically in front of ther cameras by rushing to Sheikh's aid - and I'm actually amazed (but at the same time very pleased) that that aspect hasn't been bandied around here yet.



I won't comment either way on the Right Hon. Ms Mirabella. I don't know how I'd react in the first 5 seconds if someone passed out next to me. Otherwise I agree with you Eager.


----------



## drsmith (4 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> Sophie Mirabella is part of the right wing loony support for Abbott along with a few other empty heads so she ain't going no where.
> 
> Shame plenty of real talent on the outer ministry and back bench.



You get back into your political bunker. 

Labor as a whole is going backwards at an increasing rate of knots.


----------



## StumpyPhantom (4 July 2012)

Logique said:


> I won't comment either way on the Right Hon. Ms Mirabella. I don't know how I'd react in the first 5 seconds if someone passed out next to me. Otherwise I agree with you Eager.




You're right.  I've been conditioned on Hollywood pass outs, where the jaw drops and the eyes roll in the back of the head, all the while  staying upright, or at least long enough for the camera to get an eyefull.

Having challenged my 17 year old son to eat his creme caramel dessert without a spoon on the weekend, my first reaction to that sight was: "I didn't know Q&A served food" and my second reaction was: "You would have thought he could have used his fingers"


----------



## wayneL (4 July 2012)

IFocus said:


> She is right wing empty headed and a total drop kick........right up your alley.




Like I said, I'm out of the loop of Oz politics over here in NZ... wouldn't know her if she feel out of a packet of cornflakes.. 

But as a point of order, even though I am anti Fabian, which puts me at odds with your unthinking faith, I am not right wing.


----------



## sails (5 July 2012)

wayneL said:


> Like I said, I'm out of the loop of Oz politics over here in NZ... wouldn't know her if she feel out of a packet of cornflakes..
> 
> But as a point of order, even though I am anti Fabian, which puts me at odds with your unthinking faith, I am not right wing.




I would think IFocus knows the masses who are unhappy with this present fabian styled government are not ALL right wingers.  Swinging voters do not fit that category.  In which case, IF's statement is a deliberate lie with intent to bait or flame..


----------



## IFocus (5 July 2012)

wayneL said:


> Like I said, I'm out of the loop of Oz politics over here in NZ... wouldn't know her if she feel out of a packet of cornflakes..
> 
> But as a point of order, even though I am anti Fabian, which puts me at odds with your unthinking faith, I am not right wing.




To be fair Sophie would never be your type I am sure your standards would be far higher.


----------



## white_goodman (6 July 2012)

seems like every reporter surrounds themselves with people who have seizures and pass out every 20mins, Id say id act very much the same


----------



## basilio (9 July 2012)

Another excellent Q & A tonight.  

Can easily understand why Malcolm Turnball will never be leader of the Lib-Nats.  Just far too logical, articulate and thoughtful. Way above the heads (and pockets ) of the average Lib parliamentarian.  (And the Labour ones as well.)

Also worth realising that there is no way the commercial  channels would host such a program. Just not enough dummies who would watch it.


----------



## white_goodman (11 July 2012)

basilio said:


> Another excellent Q & A tonight.
> 
> Can easily understand why Malcolm Turnball will never be leader of the Lib-Nats.  Just far too logical, articulate and thoughtful. Way above the heads (and pockets ) of the average Lib parliamentarian.  (And the Labour ones as well.)
> 
> Also worth realising that there is no way the commercial  channels would host such a program. Just not enough dummies who would watch it.




dont worry plenty of dummies watch it already based upon the tweets and audience..

The member for Goldman although logical and articulate may not be batting for our team..


----------



## Julia (11 July 2012)

basilio said:


> Another excellent Q & A tonight.



I've read a few excerpts from it in print form.  No wonder you loved it, bas.  Sounds like a real left love-in, with plenty of hugs for Mr Turnbull.  Malcolm loves Q & A for all the egostroking he gets when he appears.



> Can easily understand why Malcolm Turnball will never be leader of the Lib-Nats.



Try to remember that he was given a go at the job and demonstrated that he completely lacked political nous.  Surely you recall the embarrassment of the Godwin Grech affair.



> Also worth realising that there is no way the commercial  channels would host such a program. Just not enough dummies who would watch it.



Only the ABC with its Left bias would run it the way it does.  If it were more objective it would attract a wider audience.   The figures quoted each week supposedly showing the % of audience voting Liberal, Labor, Green are a joke.   I suppose it's pretty simple for  audience members to announce themselves as Liberal voters when in fact they would never so vote in their worst dream.


----------



## Eager (13 July 2012)

Julia said:


> Try to remember that he was given a go at the job and demonstrated that he completely lacked political nous.



Try to remember that at the subsequent leadershop ballot, Turnbull only lost to Abbott by one vote...


----------



## burglar (13 July 2012)

Aussiejeff said:


> Well, the new series of Auntie's *Q & A* has started with a bang.
> 
> Last night's opening gambit ...




A gambit is an opening!!
So what is an opening gambit


----------



## Samson 9 (13 July 2012)

burglar said:


> A gambit is an opening!!
> So what is an opening gambit




Google is your friend.

Opening Gambit:

An opening movement, tactic, or statement which is made to secure a position that is to one's advantage.

The rebel army's opening gambit was to bomb the city's business district.
The prosecution's opening gambit was to call a witness who linked the defendant to the scene of the crime.

Sam


----------



## burglar (14 July 2012)

Samson 9 said:


> Google is your friend.
> 
> Opening Gambit:
> 
> ...




OMG 
I have been corrected by an online dictionary!


----------



## DB008 (6 August 2012)

Decent show tonight.
Bob Katter is going off (as usual?)...


----------



## pixel (6 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> Decent show tonight.
> Bob Katter is going off (as usual?)...




took also time off, hoping for some light relief.
But apart from Bob Katter's ramblings, I left, disappointed by the repetitive biffo between Emerson and Brandon.


----------



## DB008 (6 August 2012)

pixel said:


> took also time off, hoping for some light relief.
> But apart from Bob Katter's ramblings, I left, disappointed by the repetitive biffo between Emerson and Brandon.




+1
I left just before l posted.


----------



## sptrawler (6 August 2012)

I watched it once and after five minutes thought it was a labor party hug fest, so switched it off.
If it improves someone let me know, thanks.
Actually same as Bolt, Liberal hug fest, watched it once.
If it improves, let me know also. Thanks


----------



## MrBurns (7 August 2012)

Emmerson is a goose, I really dont know how he has the gall to take a pay cheque.

Brandon is excellent, talks sense and doesnt appear to be political in a nasty way.


----------



## waimate01 (7 August 2012)

Katie Noonan seems to have pretty clear ideas about what everybody else should do. She could be the next Peter Garrett <smirk>.


----------



## bullet21 (7 August 2012)

waimate01 said:


> Katie Noonan seems to have pretty clear ideas about what everybody else should do. She could be the next Peter Garrett <smirk>.




MUSIC, MUSIC, MUSIC!!!! at least when this countries bankrupt we'll have people to sing songs about it. When did this country become so entitled?

Bring back the Kennett slash and burn days I say.


----------



## drsmith (7 August 2012)

Given there was considerable discussion (criticism) of the recently elected Qld government on last night's show, there should have been a representative from that government on the panel, perhaps Campbell Newman himself.


----------



## MrBurns (7 August 2012)

bullet21 said:


> MUSIC, MUSIC, MUSIC!!!! at least when this countries bankrupt we'll have people to sing songs about it. When did this country become so entitled?
> 
> Bring back the Kennett slash and burn days I say.




While Brandon was praising Kennett that loud mouth ignorant half wit Emmerson constantly interupted him in the rudest manner, you really feel like..........ahhh wont say


----------



## Julia (7 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Given there was considerable discussion (criticism) of the recently elected Qld government on last night's show, there should have been a representative from that government on the panel, perhaps Campbell Newman himself.



Mr Newman might be a bit concerned to learn that his popularity rating in the latest Qld poll has fallen nine points.



MrBurns said:


> While Brandon was praising Kennett that loud mouth ignorant half wit Emmerson constantly interupted him in the rudest manner, you really feel like..........ahhh wont say



Burnsie, it's George Brandis.


----------



## MrBurns (7 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Burnsie, it's George Brandis.




pixel called him Brandon and I followed, it's pixels fault:


----------



## drsmith (7 August 2012)

Julia said:


> Mr Newman might be a bit concerned to learn that his popularity rating in the latest Qld poll has fallen nine points.



Given the bagging he was copping on Q&A last night, it would have been good to hear his defence.


----------



## bullet21 (7 August 2012)

drsmith said:


> Given the bagging he was copping on Q&A last night, it would have been good to hear his defence.




The cognitive dissonance is astounding, he was voted in to reign in the Labour's spending. Now they're all crying foul because scrapping their entitlements wasn't part of the deal. Maybe he should get his hands on a printing press and print Queensland out of debt.

Or maybe the Q & A audience is overly represented by the left.


----------



## Julia (7 August 2012)

bullet21 said:


> The cognitive dissonance is astounding, he was voted in to reign in the Labour's spending. Now they're all crying foul because scrapping their entitlements wasn't part of the deal. Maybe he should get his hands on a printing press and print Queensland out of debt.



Ah, bullet, people like the concept of Qld getting out of debt.  But it's a whole different matter when they are personally affected.  Can-Do needs to stick to his guns.
However, he has not gone about properly selling the need to reduce public service positions well at all.
Imo he should have preceded the sackings by addressing the State and explaining that the previous Labor government had unnecessarily inflated the public service, and the unfortunate result is that those people are now going to lose their jobs.

He has pointed out that if the unions were more moderate in their demands, there would be fewer jobs lost.
e.g. if they'd agreed to a pay freeze for a year or two, it's possible no jobs would have been lost.

If he had in such an explanation diverted the blame from himself and back onto the previous government and the current union stand, it's my bet his popularity would be closer to its original level.




> Or maybe the Q & A audience is overly represented by the left.



When they put up on the screen the proportion of the audience naming themselves as Liberal, Labor, Greens, everytime I've looked at it, the Libs have considerably outnumbered the other parties.
I simply don't believe this, judging by the audience reactions.  Either the program itself is rigging the numbers, or Labor and Greens fans are rocking up and declaring themselves Liberals purely in order to affect the tenor of the program.
I've stopped watching it.


----------



## DB008 (7 August 2012)

Julia said:


> When they put up on the screen the proportion of the audience naming themselves as Liberal, Labor, Greens, everytime I've looked at it, the Libs have considerably outnumbered the other parties.
> I simply don't believe this, judging by the audience reactions.  Either the program itself is rigging the numbers, or Labor and Greens fans are rocking up and declaring themselves Liberals purely in order to affect the tenor of the program.
> I've stopped watching it.




+1 - From my limited watching experience, l have to agree. Seems like the audience is heavily left fielded. Doesn't help that the presenter is a leftie too (or so it looks like to me).

l'm probably on my last legs of watching it, the brief period l have been watching QandA.


----------



## sptrawler (7 August 2012)

Julia said:


> When they put up on the screen the proportion of the audience naming themselves as Liberal, Labor, Greens, everytime I've looked at it, the Libs have considerably outnumbered the other parties.
> I simply don't believe this, judging by the audience reactions.  Either the program itself is rigging the numbers, or Labor and Greens fans are rocking up and declaring themselves Liberals purely in order to affect the tenor of the program.
> I've stopped watching it.




I'm with you on this Julia, watched it once and thought it was a labor group hug meeting.


----------



## drsmith (10 September 2012)

Listening to the discussion on asylum seekers tonight, the panel is sided 4-to-1, or is that 5-to-1 ?


----------



## Miss Hale (10 September 2012)

As it had Catherine Devany on it I couldn't watch.


----------



## Julia (11 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> As it had Catherine Devany on it I couldn't watch.



I've recorded it but that now rules out watching it also.  How do some of these people get to be all over everything?  Deveny is one of the silliest women I've ever encountered.


----------



## Miss Hale (11 September 2012)

Julia said:


> I've recorded it but that now rules out watching it also.  How do some of these people get to be all over everything?  Deveny is one of the silliest women I've ever encountered.




I agree.  The first time I saw her on Q&A I assumed that it would be the last she was so terrible - I think she's probably been on another 1/2 dozen times since!

If I can't bear to watch it I sometimes read the transcript on the ABC website, it's easier to skip over the silly bits.


----------



## waimate01 (11 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> As it had Catherine Devany on it I couldn't watch.




Peter Jensen seemed to realise that being seated next to Catherine Devany immediately made him look like a reasonable and analytical individual. Every time she was blathering he had a well-pleased look on his face.


----------



## Duckman#72 (11 September 2012)

Julia said:


> I've recorded it but that now rules out watching it also.  How do some of these people get to be all over everything?  Deveny is one of the silliest women I've ever encountered.




In my opinion, she is a woman with no obvious redeeming features.

For someone who pretends to champion the rights of the downtrodden, abused, discriminated and oppressed, she is aggressive, petchulant, intolerant and churlish at best and downright vicious and insulting at worst. She is impossible to have a civilised debate or rational conversation with as she quickly falls into her standard position of trying to intimidate her opponents with sarcastic vitriol.  Deveny's conversation (putting it nicely) with Peter Jensen were laced with mockery, derision and distain.

In many cases, her views are far more narrow-minded, prejudiced, and fanatical than those of her opponents. I know they always try to throw some light comic relief into the panel - but Deveny brings nothing to the show. An acid tongue and contempt for others doesn't make a comedian.

Just an example of how far this show has fallen. At least it used to pretend to be balanced. Between Tony Jones' snide and dismissive comments, the lack of depth of debate from both the Left and Right, and the lack of relevant content means the show is a shadow of what it could be.  

Maybe I'm on my own, but please..............am I the only person in this country that thinks we have far more pressing and concerning matters other than asylum seekers and gay marriage. 

Duckman


----------



## Miss Hale (11 September 2012)

waimate01 said:


> Peter Jensen seemed to realise that being seated next to Catherine Devany immediately made him look like a reasonable and analytical individual. Every time she was blathering he had a well-pleased look on his face.




I (unfortunately) caught the last couple of minutes of it when I turned the TV on to watch Lateline.  Despite Tony Jones saying Jensen was to have the last word, Deveny interupted him constantly and when he tried to address one of her questions she changed topic to something competely unrelated - I'm sure he thought she was a complete imbecile.  She always acts like she has drunk too much red cordial.


----------



## Julia (11 September 2012)

Duckman#72 said:


> Maybe I'm on my own, but please..............am I the only person in this country that thinks we have far more pressing and concerning matters other than asylum seekers and gay marriage.
> 
> Duckman



Definitely not, Duckman.
Btw, how nice to have you gracing the discussion once more.
Hope you and all the ducklings are well and happy.

Re all our criticisms of Catherine Deveny, how about whacking off an email to the Q & A program expressing your disgust.  As long as they don't receive criticism they may continue to imagine they are bringing to the screen someone the audience actually values.  Time to disabuse them of that silly notion imo.http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/contact-us.htm


----------



## Tink (11 September 2012)

Yes, agree with all comments regarding Catherine Deveny, even in the small part I saw of her recently on 'Go back where you came from', I was disgusted on how rude she was to the others participating.

Good idea Julia, might do that myself.


----------



## DocK (12 September 2012)

Just watched it last night.  Deveny is certainly a quite odious woman and imo does more to harm her "cause" than help it.  Just as a lot of Christians are most unhappy with Jim Wallace and the Christian Lobby's views on gays, I think a lot of people who agree in principle with the spirit of some of her views would prefer she keep her strident and overbearing manner away from the public arena.  Although I disagreed with almost everything Archbishop Peter Jensen said - he came across as much more rational and believable in comparison.  There is simply no excuse for bad manners imo and if she could find a way to put her case calmly, politely and without resorting to belittling her oponents she would gain more credibility.

Much to my surprise (and no little consternation) I found myself agreeing far more with Chris Evans than Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, whose rhetoric made me wonder whether I really want to vote for a party whose members are quite likely to impose their own religious views on the country at large.  

I still enjoy the show on the whole - there is something to be learnt or considered about even the most repellant panellists.  Sometimes the people I enjoy watching the least have the more longlasting influence upon me - even if that is simply a determination not to emulate them in any way!


----------



## Julia (12 September 2012)

Dock makes mention above of Jim Wallace.  Until the recent fuss about his quite silly remarks I'd imagined he actually headed up some group representing all Christians, given his organisation is called the "Australian Christian Lobby".  Apparently not so at all.  It's just a private organisation and absolutely not representative of or inclusive of any Australian churches.  It's hard to understand, then, why he gets so much air time.


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Dock makes mention above of Jim Wallace.  Until the recent fuss about his quite silly remarks I'd imagined he actually headed up some group representing all Christians, given his organisation is called the "Australian Christian Lobby".  Apparently not so at all.  It's just a private organisation and absolutely not representative of or inclusive of any Australian churches.  It's hard to understand, then, why he gets so much air time.




Good point Julia. 

Surely you would think "The Media" would do their very best to clear up this apparent misrepresentation.   The intention couldn't be to make the public at large think that Jim Wallace directly represented the mainstream Church groups? 

By the way - good to be back Julia. Yes the 4 ducklings are going well thankyou. Youngest one is 5 now


----------



## Duckman#72 (12 September 2012)

DocK said:


> Much to my surprise (and no little consternation) I found myself agreeing far more with Chris Evans than Concetta Fierravanti-Wells, whose rhetoric made me wonder whether I really want to vote for a party *whose members are quite likely to impose their own religious views on the country at large*.




Hi Dock

I have heard this argument before and I'm curious. What "religious views" are you scared will be "imposed" on the country? The very definition of impose means ....to apply,levy,introduce,establish or decree. What policies have been earmarked for possible introduction that would result in the imposition of religious views on the country? 

This huge scare campaign against the conservative politics based on the religious background of Abbott in particular, is in my opinion a fear campaign that just doesn't justify the hype.

Duckman


----------



## DocK (12 September 2012)

Duckman#72 said:


> Hi Dock
> 
> I have heard this argument before and I'm curious. What "religious views" are you scared will be "imposed" on the country? The very definition of impose means ....to apply,levy,introduce,establish or decree. What policies have been earmarked for possible introduction that would result in the imposition of religious views on the country?
> 
> ...




I have no knowledge of any policies earmarked for introduction.  I cannot give you any concrete examples.   I am not buying into a scare campaign as such, but I do feel quite strongly that religious beliefs should be a private matter, and should be kept separate from political matters.  I have nothing against christians, I just get an uneasy feeling when several key members of a political party share a common religious view - it is natural for one's own beliefs to colour one's decision-making and I don't want future legislation to be influenced by the governing party's religious views.  As an example, take religion in schools, legalisation of abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia etc.  These are all contentious subjects and I would want my government to represent the views of the people, not necessarily their own views in particular.  I am not saying this will be the case - I hope it would not - it just makes me uneasy.  To my way of thinking democracy works best when there is a diversity of beliefs and opinions.

Fierravanti-Wells' comments re gay people seemed at odds with her position as shadow spokesperson for mental health, she seems out-of-touch with the young people she should be representing. Her assertion that the silent majority of Australians were christians who shared her views re gay marriage and the traditions that go with chistianity, and her comments re the "chattering classes" were what really sent alarm bells ringing for me.  In my circle of family, friends, acquaintances and work associates I would say that the majority do not agree with the traditional views of the church.  Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd bet that the majority of Australians hold a more contemporary view than the traditional line of both catholic and anglican faiths - even my family and friends who are catholic do not agree with or adhere to the church's more entrenched views.


----------



## waimate01 (13 September 2012)

DocK said:


> I have no knowledge of any policies earmarked for introduction.  I cannot give you any concrete examples.



Ok then


DocK said:


> I am not buying into a scare campaign



Look, I largely agree with your sentiment, but please realise that you are exactly buying into a scare campaign. Fear without information is pretty much a scare campaign. A warranted scare campaign perhaps, but a scare campaign nevertheless.


----------



## DocK (13 September 2012)

waimate01 said:


> Ok then
> 
> Look, I largely agree with your sentiment, but please realise that you are exactly buying into a scare campaign. Fear without information is pretty much a scare campaign. A warranted scare campaign perhaps, but a scare campaign nevertheless.




Ok, I don't want to get into an argument about what actually constitutes a scare campaign....  I feel the way I feel regardless of any campaigns being run on forums/twitter/tv etc that I am unaware of, by people I could care less about.  If my stating my impression of a tv show is somehow adding to, or buying into, a scare campaign then so be it, but that was not my intention.  If it helps to even things out I'm also against the current implementation of the carbon tax, and formed that opinion without being involved in the scare campaign about that also.  Seems that just about any political issue is the subject of a scare campaign of some variety these days - surely it is possible to discuss an issue or state an opinion without being seen as either trying to scare others or being unduly influenced oneself? 

I don't need to have proof that something will happen in order to worry that it might.  I worry that my kids may be involved in a car accident, based on the fact that they will shortly be driving, without having proof that such a thing may happen.  I worry that the lack of construction activity in my local area may never return to prior levels, again with no proof that this will happen.  I sincerely hope to be wrong on both counts.  My point is that humans form impressions and worry about future outcomes based on their own perceptions of people, and how those people behave and speak - being either accused of promoting or dismissed as buying into a "scare campaign" when simply stating a personal opinion is reaching a bit too far imo.  I believe I may have posted some of my rather negative impressions of our current government on this forum - I wasn't accused of buying into a scare campaign then???


----------



## Duckman#72 (13 September 2012)

DocK said:


> I have no knowledge of any policies earmarked for introduction.  I cannot give you any concrete examples.   I am not buying into a scare campaign as such, but I do feel quite strongly that religious beliefs should be a private matter, and should be kept separate from political matters.  I have nothing against christians, I just get an uneasy feeling when several key members of a political party share a common religious view - it is natural for one's own beliefs to colour one's decision-making and I don't want future legislation to be influenced by the governing party's religious views.  As an example, take religion in schools, legalisation of abortion, gay marriage, euthanasia etc.  These are all contentious subjects and I would want my government to represent the views of the people, not necessarily their own views in particular.  I am not saying this will be the case - I hope it would not - it just makes me uneasy.




Fair enough,good points. But I still can't help think that it is a concern that has been fostered by the Left with very little foundation.  At no time in our nation's history has Christian religion been such an irrelevant force in Australian politics than right now. 

The issues you raise such as "religion in schools, legislation of abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia" are all social issues that have always been contentious. In the main, the position of both parties on these issues have been similar, basically in line with mainstream voters, which in turn was also in line with Christian principles.

Your concern seems to be that Conservative politics will not be progressive enough in changing away from the status quo. By "imposing their views" you mean they will keep things the same. 



DocK said:


> To my way of thinking democracy works best when there is a diversity of beliefs and opinions.



 I dare say there is a *large*portion of Australian voters who feel that they wished that over the past 3 years there was far less diversity of beliefs and opinions in Australian politics.   



DocK said:


> Perhaps I'm wrong, but I'd bet that the majority of Australians hold a more contemporary view than the traditional line of both catholic and anglican faiths - even my family and friends who are catholic do not agree with or adhere to the church's more entrenched views.




I completely agree with you. The majority of Australians would hold a more contemporary view than the traditional line of both Anglican and Catholic faith - but that doesn't automatically mean the majority of Australians believe in gay marriage. The reason both Labour and the Coalition don't want to go near it on the policy front is due to voter backlash. It would be a certain election loser.   

In my opinion, policy positions are ultimately still decided on political survival rather than religious position. The "spin" would suggest otherwise.  

Dock, I do respect your position. Pease don't think that I'm just "looking for an argument"  I am just trying to debate an issue that often pops up on Q&A.  By no way am I a hard core religious nutter, but it frustrates me that "religion" is so often represented as a whipping boy in Australian politics. Everyone gets a free swing.  

Duckman


----------



## DocK (13 September 2012)

Duckman#72 said:


> The issues you raise such as "religion in schools, legislation of abortion, gay marriage and euthanasia" are all social issues that have always been contentious. In the main, the position of both parties on these issues have been similar, basically in line with mainstream voters, which in turn was also in line with Christian principles.
> 
> *Your concern seems to be that Conservative politics will not be progressive enough in changing away from the status quo. By "imposing their views" you mean they will keep things the same. *
> 
> ...




You are quite correct in that there is often very little to differentiate one party from another.  You raise some valid points re the position of mainstream voters - perhaps I have misjudged the prevailing attitudes of society as a whole, but I feel that there is a large shift away from the more traditional views that have fit the majority thus far.  Maybe it's just a generational difference and I mix with a younger crowd  It does often seem that the values and beliefs of the older and younger generations are at polar opposites, but I guess this is no new thing.  I probably sit somewhere in the middle, but yes, I do feel our politicians (and yes, that includes both major parties) are clinging to the status quo.   I daresay as a new generation of voters replace the older generation the current policies on many issues will come under increasing pressure to change. 

My immediate concern, however, is that I feel the next election may be along similar lines to my recent Qld experience.  I worry that without a strong opposition the ruling party may be able to ignore the wishes of the people they represent to a degree - I hope my worries are unwarranted, and I shall vote for the coalition in any case, just as I voted for Newman - not because I really want to, but because I see them as the lesser of two evils.


----------



## Miss Hale (13 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Re all our criticisms of Catherine Deveny, how about whacking off an email to the Q & A program expressing your disgust.  As long as they don't receive criticism they may continue to imagine they are bringing to the screen someone the audience actually values.  Time to disabuse them of that silly notion imo.http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/contact-us.htm




I very rarely contact TV, radio stations, newspapers etc. but would you believe one of the few occasions I have was to complain about Deveny to the ABC. It was after the first time she was on Q&A and I had never encountered her before and was astonished that they would have someone so rude and stupid on the show.  Will take up your suggestion and do it again.


----------



## Julia (13 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I very rarely contact TV, radio stations, newspapers etc. but would you believe one of the few occasions I have was to complain about Deveny to the ABC. It was after the first time she was on Q&A and I had never encountered her before and was astonished that they would have someone so rude and stupid on the show.  Will take up your suggestion and do it again.



Goodonya, Miss Hale.  We haven't much right to complain if we're not prepared to tell the media entity of our dissatisfaction.


----------



## lindsayf (13 September 2012)

Duckman#72 said:


> Maybe I'm on my own, but please..............am I the only person in this country that thinks we have far more pressing and concerning matters other than asylum seekers and gay marriage.
> 
> Duckman





I can assure you that you are not on  your own!  It continues to baffle me the air time that these issues get.  I suppose with the quality of political discourse at an all time low these side issues get way more traction than they should?


----------



## Miss Hale (17 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Goodonya, Miss Hale.  We haven't much right to complain if we're not prepared to tell the media entity of our dissatisfaction.




I doubt they will take any notice though.  I emailed them in the early days of Insiders suggesting they have a more balanced panel and they wrote back telling me it was balanced


----------



## Calliope (17 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I doubt they will take any notice though.  I emailed them in the early days of Insiders suggesting they have a more balanced panel and they wrote back telling me it was balanced




Thanks Miss Hale. I haven't had much to be happy about today, but this gave me a good belly laugh.


----------



## Julia (17 September 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I doubt they will take any notice though.  I emailed them in the early days of Insiders suggesting they have a more balanced panel and they wrote back telling me it was balanced




Yep, I've had similar responses.  One was about 12 paragraphs long but actually conceded that they were in error on the issue.

 If they get enough negative feedback, you'd have to hope they would take a bit of notice.
(Or perhaps I'm a silly optimist as far as the ABC is concerned.)


----------



## drsmith (17 September 2012)

Greg Sheridan was very good tonight is his defence of Tony Abbott. He was also more measured in his general commentary on this political attack than he was in his recent interview on ABC radio.


----------



## DB008 (8 October 2012)

Tonights show, Christopher Pyne referring to the 3 Labour ladies as the 'Handbag squad' - LOLOLOL!

(Could be wrong, but it was 3 ladies)


----------



## MrBurns (8 October 2012)

DB008 said:


> Tonights show, Christopher Pyne referring to the 3 Labour ladies as the 'Handbag squad' - LOLOLOL!
> 
> (Could be wrong, but it was 3 ladies)




I find Pyne impresive.

Kate Elis thumping the table in mock defence of women


----------



## DB008 (8 October 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I find Pyne impresive.
> 
> Kate Elis thumping the table in mock defence of women




I agree. I only watched a bit of the show (gets on my nerves after 15 or so minutes), Kate Elis is a joke and a half.


----------



## drsmith (8 October 2012)

DB008 said:


> Tonights show, Christopher Pyne referring to the 3 Labour ladies as the 'Handbag squad' - LOLOLOL!
> 
> (Could be wrong, but it was 3 ladies)



With daylight saving in the eastern states, that's now on ABC24 at 6:30pm in Perth. I didn't think of that.

I'll have to see if I can stay awake for the 9:30pm edition on ABC2.


----------



## Calliope (8 October 2012)

The left wing bias of this audience of weird looking activists is so obvious that it couldn't happen by chance.


----------



## burglar (9 October 2012)

Julia said:


> ... If they get enough negative feedback ...




I once sent some positive feedback to the ABC

I received a delightful response!


----------



## MrBurns (9 October 2012)

Piers Akermans attempt to bring up relevant subjects like Michael Williamson and Slipper instead of Alan Jones and Abbott bulldust he was shut down very quickly by Tony Jones


----------



## pilots (9 October 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Piers Akermans attempt to bring up relevant subjects like Michael Williamson and Slipper instead of Alan Jones and Abbott bulldust he was shut down very quickly by Tony Jones




I could not believe the way he shut him down, what he wanted to say was FACT, but Tony was not going to have anyone knock his Govement.


----------



## MrBurns (9 October 2012)

pilots said:


> I could not believe the way he shut him down, what he wanted to say was FACT, but Tony was not going to have anyone knock his Govement.




No it was damn obvious he wanted to avoid those subjects, very disappointed.
Using the lame excuse they were sticking to the question so there would be no time left, I also think the audience was stacked, plenty in there lying that they were Lib supporters.


----------



## Miss Hale (9 October 2012)

burglar said:


> I once sent some positive feedback to the ABC
> 
> I received a delightful response!




Good on you for sending positive feedback, it's much easier to send the negative stuff and forget to give them a pat on the back when they get something right.

I usually receive a response when I email them but I haven't heard back yet regarding my complaint to them about Catherine Devany.


----------



## Knobby22 (9 October 2012)

Miss Hale said:


> I usually receive a response when I email them but I haven't heard back yet regarding my complaint to them about Catherine Devany.




Probably one of many, she is awful.


----------



## Duckman#72 (9 October 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Piers Akermans attempt to bring up relevant subjects like Michael Williamson and Slipper instead of Alan Jones and Abbott bulldust he was shut down very quickly by Tony Jones




I specifically looked at my watch and by the halfway point in the show the only topics that had been covered were Alan Jones and Tony Abbott's "problem" he has with women.  I turned it off after someone in the audience spent about 2mins making a comment that effectively tried to pin changes to future abortion laws to Abbott.   

At least it is a spell from asylum seekers and climate change.

Tony was much better on Lateline. On Q&A he doesn't even try to be unbiased.

Can someone actually tell me if anything is actually happening in Parliment at the moment? Are there any pieces of legislation that are being passed? Any major policy shifts or proposals? It would make a nice change from hearing about Peter Slippers mussels, how Tony disrespects women, and the outcry from Jones comments.

Duckman


----------



## Calliope (9 October 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Probably one of many, she is awful.




The female equivalent to Alan Jones.


----------



## DocK (10 October 2012)

I just got around to watching it - couldn't believe the quoted stats of coalition vs labor voters in the audience - it was very clearly stacked with activists as mentioned already.

Why is it that when a male opposition leader attacks a male prime minister it's accepted as standard practice and acceptable, if unpleasant, behaviour - but if the pm happens to be a woman than _any_ criticism of her is deemed to be misogynistic?  I do think the female govt ministers are overdoing the whole misogyny attack, and unfortunately the ultimate effect may be to the detriment of women in general.   

Why does nobody point out that although Abbott is the leader of the opposition, he is still the leader of a party and not free to dictate policy willy nilly.  Surely we can hope the women of the coalition would exert their influence on policymaking?


----------



## drsmith (5 November 2012)

For those in WA inparticular, tonight has an interesting lineup,

Colin Barnett - WA Premier 
Bob Brown - Former Leader of the Greens 
Alannah MacTiernan - Former Labor Minister 
Hannah McGlade - Indigenous human rights lawyer 
Bob Cronin - Editor in Chief, The West Australian

Alannah MacTiernan inparticular is always good value.


----------



## DB008 (5 November 2012)

First 5 minutes, watch the host (Tony), shake his head when Colin Barnett replies about the gas project. True colours. Biased Host.


----------



## Duckman#72 (6 November 2012)

DB008 said:


> First 5 minutes, watch the host (Tony), shake his head when Colin Barnett replies about the gas project. True colours. Biased Host.




Despite that, it was one of the better episodes I think I'd seen (from a debate viewpoint), mainly because those on the panel didn't just argue for the sake of it.

I thought Colin Barnett came across as extremely knowledgeable, solid and articulate. His concise summary of various issues gave everyone listening a great background to how, why, and when decisions were made. More than once he put Bob Brown back in his box, not by name calling, but for exposing Brown for having policies that sound good but are in fact non-commercial and out of touch with reality.  

Alannah MacTeirnan was also very good value. Witty , confident and made some good arguments. Both she and Bob Cronin had a good "hit out" against each other.   

It is a shame that out Federal leaders are not as impressive.

Duckman


----------



## DB008 (6 November 2012)

Duckman#72 said:


> Despite that, it was one of the better episodes I think I'd seen (from a debate viewpoint), mainly because those on the panel didn't just argue for the sake of it.
> 
> I thought Colin Barnett came across as extremely knowledgeable, solid and articulate. His concise summary of various issues gave everyone listening a great background to how, why, and when decisions were made. More than once he put Bob Brown back in his box, not by name calling, but for exposing Brown for having policies that sound good but are in fact non-commercial and out of touch with reality.
> 
> ...




Yes Duckman, I agree on all your points. I actually watched the whole episode this time. Usually l've been walking away once they start with the quibbling. 

Colin Barnett came across very knowledgeable. 

Bob Brown 'Just give them the money'...from where?????


----------



## Duckman#72 (6 November 2012)

DB008 said:


> Bob Brown 'Just give them the money'...from where?????




Yes ......great line from Bob, and a fantastic example of his general thought process.

Duckman


----------



## sptrawler (7 November 2012)

DB008 said:


> Yes Duckman, I agree on all your points. I actually watched the whole episode this time. Usually l've been walking away once they start with the quibbling.
> 
> Colin Barnett came across very knowledgeable.
> 
> Bob Brown 'Just give them the money'...from where?????




Yes Bob Brown came over as a bit thick. 
Put the hub somewhere else and give the aboriginals the compensation anyway. Well if they put the hub elsewhere why does the James Point people deserve $1.5b any more than the aboriginals at Halls Creek or Wiluna or anywhere else?
Also no matter where they put it, some group will jump up and down about it.
As Barnett said it would be cheaper and easier to have an offshore loading facility. 
Brown showed himself to have no idea, just has to get himself on t.v. 
It's just a shame I am having to chip in for his pension.


----------



## DocK (7 November 2012)

Always surprises me that a lot of Aussies seem to expect the indigenous population to speak with one voice.  I got the impression from some on the panel that unless all of the indigenous people in the area were in favour of the plant proceeding, then it should be relocated.  As one of them pointed out, Aussies in general can't agree wholeheartedly on much, which is why we generally adopt a majority rules system.  Why should matters concerning the indigenous be any different - if the majority of the aboriginal people in that region are in favour of the project going ahead - so be it.  I agree wholeheartedly with the opinion voiced by one of their elders that they need employment opportunites, and the independence that flows from standing on their own feet rather than being dependant on Govt welfare payments.  It's to be expected that there will always be a majority and an opposing minority.  The agreement of every single faction would not be sought in any other region would it?


----------



## DocK (22 November 2012)

I know it aired a few days ago, but I just caught up with this week's ep of Q&A and am still feeling like I've stumbled across a new show.  There was hardly any bickering and both politicians behaved like statesmen.  They spoke to and about each other with respect.  Who'd have thunk it possible?  I loved Turnbull's use of Edison's quote: "a vision without implementation is just an hallucination" in reply to Rudd's spiel on his vision for Australia's future.  Every member on the panel had something of value to contribute and there was no vitriol or offence passed off as humour.  It was so refreshing to hear actual policies and issues being discussed rather than the usual personality attack.  Rudd's description of current politics as being akin to a Punch and Judy show was appreciated by the audience.  Coulldn't avoid the obvious speculation about leadership spills in both parties with both Rudd and Turnbull doing their best version of "the party has spoken and I lost/I'm loyal to Tony" respectively - neither particularly believably imo.  All the same it was a pleasant change to see rivals who clearly respected each other and didn't resort to personal attacks.  Wish it could be like that every week.

Tony was much the same unfortunately - still cutting off the female panelists and talking over the top of anyone he disagreed with


----------



## Gringotts Bank (22 November 2012)

DocK said:


> I know it aired a few days ago, but I just caught up with this week's ep of Q&A and am still feeling like I've stumbled across a new show.  There was hardly any bickering and both politicians behaved like statesmen.  They spoke to and about each other with respect.  Who'd have thunk it possible?  I loved Turnbull's use of Edison's quote: "a vision without implementation is just an hallucination" in reply to Rudd's spiel on his vision for Australia's future.  Every member on the panel had something of value to contribute and there was no vitriol or offence passed off as humour.  It was so refreshing to hear actual policies and issues being discussed rather than the usual personality attack.  Rudd's description of current politics as being akin to a Punch and Judy show was appreciated by the audience.  Coulldn't avoid the obvious speculation about leadership spills in both parties with both Rudd and Turnbull doing their best version of "the party has spoken and I lost/I'm loyal to Tony" respectively - neither particularly believably imo.  All the same it was a pleasant change to see rivals who clearly respected each other and didn't resort to personal attacks.  Wish it could be like that every week.
> 
> Tony was much the same unfortunately - still cutting off the female panelists and talking over the top of anyone he disagreed with




I think without the two women panel members it would have been a very different picture.  They were very stabilizing.  Rudd was all smiley and "hey I'm a good knock around Aussie" until Turnbull mentioned how his party poleaxed him, wherein Rudd could be seen to almost weep.  He should be over that by now, but clearly isn't.


----------



## Logique (22 November 2012)

DocK said:


> ...couldn't believe the quoted stats of coalition vs labor voters in the audience - it was very clearly stacked with activists as mentioned already..



Wouldn't surprise if Q&A started predicting a surplus of coalition voters. By 2013.


----------



## DocK (22 November 2012)

Gringotts Bank said:


> I think without the two women panel members it would have been a very different picture.  They were very stabilizing.  Rudd was all smiley and "hey I'm a good knock around Aussie" until Turnbull mentioned how his party poleaxed him, wherein Rudd could be seen to almost weep.  He should be over that by now, but clearly isn't.




I got the impression he was trying his best to look saintly and hard-done-by.  I think he loves the Aussie public to be reminded of how badly he was treated, as often as possible. His best chance of getting what he wants lies in Gillard's unpopularity increasing and I think he's happy to have others speak of how "the faceless men" stabbed him in the back - he just can't be seen to be revelling in it, hence the very insincere expression I thought I saw on his face.  His reference to politician's integrity needing to be above reproach, and how the Labor party was facing a challenge in that area now, was on the surface a reference to the Eddie Obeid scandal, but it wouldn't surprise me if he intended a sly dig at the recent media surrounding Gillard and slush funds.  I'd also bet that Rudd's jokes firstly re Turnbull being more at home on his side of politics and then saying Turnbull was far to the left of him politically weren't off the cuff but preplanned - he's a clever cookie that Kevin, no matter what you think of his politics.   I must say that Rudd and Turnbull seemed to be flirting with each other so much at one point I was tempted to shout "get a room" at the telly

I enjoyed Judith Sloan's comments and would have liked to have heard more from her - but I think Tony was more interested in furthering Rudd's cause....


----------



## Miss Hale (22 November 2012)

DocK said:


> Tony was much the same unfortunately - still cutting off the female panelists and talking over the top of anyone he disagreed with




Cutting off the female panelists?  I do hope Julia Gillard is aware of this, I expect to hear another speech on sexism and misogyny directed at Tony Jones then, she calls it as she sees it afterall


----------



## sptrawler (28 November 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Yes Bob Brown came over as a bit thick.
> Put the hub somewhere else and give the aboriginals the compensation anyway. Well if they put the hub elsewhere why does the James Point people deserve $1.5b any more than the aboriginals at Halls Creek or Wiluna or anywhere else?
> Also no matter where they put it, some group will jump up and down about it.
> As Barnett said it would be cheaper and easier to have an offshore loading facility.
> ...




I am bringing up an old post, but it highlights Bob Brown's lack of understanding of the issues. 
Locating the processing facility onshore, must have more long term benefits, than a floating facility.

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/business/a/-/national/15506542/barnett-ups-ante-on-browse/

I for one, hope Bob just takes his pension and opens a refugee centre in Tassie.


----------



## drsmith (18 March 2013)

With Alannah MacTiernan on again tonight, post WA election, it should be an interesting watch. 

I've missed it on ABC24, but look forward to it when it is broadcast on ABC2 at 9:30pm local.


----------



## sptrawler (19 March 2013)

drsmith said:


> With Alannah MacTiernan on again tonight, post WA election, it should be an interesting watch.
> 
> I've missed it on ABC24, but look forward to it when it is broadcast on ABC2 at 9:30pm local.




It's 9.30pm, the other half is watching the mentalist on Tivo.
I'm about to ask her to change over to ABC2.


Well we are still watching the mentalist and my wife isn't talking to me, thanks doc.lol


----------



## Duckman#72 (19 March 2013)

sptrawler said:


> It's 9.30pm, the other half is watching the mentalist .




I won't tell Mrs Duckman. She would hate to think Simon is seeing other women!:

Duckman


----------



## pixel (19 March 2013)

sptrawler said:


> It's 9.30pm, the other half is watching the mentalist on Tivo.
> I'm about to ask her to change over to ABC2.
> 
> 
> Well we are still watching the mentalist and my wife isn't talking to me, thanks doc.lol




Why don't you watch it later on iView?
http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#





It's still available; till the coming weekend at least. Added advantage: You can skip Barnaby's waffle and move the thumb forward till you see Alanna again. (although I can't figure out why you'd want to  )


----------



## sptrawler (19 March 2013)

pixel said:


> Why don't you watch it later on iView?
> http://www.abc.net.au/iview/#
> 
> View attachment 51387
> ...




Because I refuse to pay for download that I can watch on free to air.
Why should I have to pay more money to watch something, that has limited value?


----------



## Country Lad (19 March 2013)

sptrawler said:


> ........has limited value?




Limited? I think you are still grossly overstating its value.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## pixel (20 March 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Because I refuse to pay for download that I can watch on free to air.
> Why should I have to pay more money to watch something, that has limited value?




It may not be "unmetered", but iView is no different to any other download. If a 100 MB push you over quota, I suggest you look at a different ISP or Plan. Especially if it saves marital harmony, let SWMBO watch the Mentalist.


----------



## drsmith (10 April 2013)

I wonder whether poor Sophie has any idea what she's in for next Monday night,



> Dick Adams - Labor MP for Lyons
> Sophie Mirabella - Shadow Minister for Innovation, Industry and Science
> David Marr - Journalist and commentator
> Jan Davis - CEO of the Tasmanian Farmers and Graziers Association
> Peter Whish-Wilson - Greens Senator for Tasmania




http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/


----------



## Logique (10 April 2013)

Indeed Dr.

Speaking of Q&A, I wonder how the School Principal afterwards explained to the teenage schoolgirls in the audience on Monday night, why Germaine Greer had dismissed the harmfulness of prostitution, saying that '..we all prostitute ourselves in some way..', i.e. not an issue, tacit endorsement.

This is a long way from the 1970's feminism of '..marriage is prostitution..'.  Germaine has changed her tune, not that anybody is surprised.

Great message to send to the teenage girls Germaine. Very liberating for them.


----------



## Logique (30 April 2013)

Watch the replay at 1:00pm AEST today Tues.

The host and the Greens Senator weren't going to let Nick Cater get a word in edgeways about his views: 


> http://blogs.news.com.au/dailyteleg...aph/comments/timely_warning_of_danger_within/
> ..A new ruling class of university-educated “progressives”, “sophisticates”, “elites” and “latte-sippers” have emerged as an un-Australian clique trying to lord it over everyone else. Controlling media, law, education and the political class..




"I'll ask the questions if you don't mind" said the host, then allowed the Greens Senator to interrupt Nick Cater repeatedly, with the host taking it in turns to hammer Cater, who had no chance to enlarge on his theory.

Talk about inconvenient truths. My taxes pay for this?


----------



## Logique (11 June 2013)

Mark Latham was good value on Q&A last night.  Telling it straight.


----------



## Julia (11 June 2013)

Sure was.  Good to have someone from Labor admit that John Howard had it right on border control.
He was also pretty spot on with his description of Rudd's present behaviour.


----------



## drsmith (11 June 2013)

Logique said:


> Mark Latham was good value on Q&A last night.  Telling it straight.



On Indonesia and asylum seekers he chimed in perfectly and said what Malcolm Turnbull (for diplomatic reasons) couldn't.

Kevin Rudd should have been there. Then he and Mark Latham could have had a round of biff.


----------



## MrBurns (11 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> Kevin Rudd should have been there. Then he and Mark Latham could have had a round of biff.




A very short round I bet


----------



## bellenuit (11 June 2013)

Julia said:


> Sure was.  Good to have someone from Labor admit that John Howard had it right on border control. He was also pretty spot on with his description of Rudd's present behaviour.




I didn't get to see it and won't have the opportunity to see the archive version for a few days. How did the audience respond to what Latham said regarding Howard and the refugees? Was it predominantly positive to what he said?


----------



## Julia (11 June 2013)

There was certainly a cheer, clapping or some positive affirmation from the audience.
Can't now quite remember what.

Imo it's a pretty significant admission from Labor, even if it came from someone now probably considered outside the tent.


----------



## drsmith (24 June 2013)

Tonight's panel,



> Anne Summers - Author The Misogyny Factor
> George Brandis - Shadow Attorney General
> Graham Richardson - Labor powerbroker turned commentator
> Matt Thistlethwaite - Parliamentary Secretary for Multicultural Affairs
> Judith Sloan - Economist and businesswoman




https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=777787


----------



## Aussiejeff (25 June 2013)

drsmith said:


> Tonight's panel,
> 
> https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=777787




Wow. Richo sure got some venom for his Labor ex-mates....basically wants to see JuLiar booted by end of week with election called immediately after the knifing...errr.....spill.

Lol...

Unfortunately IMO the debate was marred by equally venomous bile spouting from that screeching lefty feminist panelist's mouth regarding anything associated with the Liberal party or TA. That was pretty sickening really and did absolutely nothing to engender support for women OR the Labor party.  

aj


----------



## chops_a_must (25 June 2013)

Anne Summers is an absolute crackpot.


----------



## MrBurns (25 June 2013)

chops_a_must said:


> Anne Summers is an absolute crackpot.




Yes another woman who thinks men who don't like or agree with her don't like or agree with women.........nut case and an embarrassment for women generally.


----------



## boofhead (25 June 2013)

What did Anne Summers say to make her a nutcase?

The Labor politician didn't do himself any favours trying to give political spin answers and failing to answer many questions. Was he trying to make himself look better internally to the party?


----------



## Tink (13 August 2013)

I was impressed on Q & A last night hearing the young ones asking Penny Wong about our debts, good to see them concerned, as it does reflect on them in the future.

I liked Janet Albrechtsen comments on the show.


----------



## MrBurns (13 August 2013)

Tink said:


> I was impressed on Q & A last night hearing the young ones asking Penny Wong about our debts, good to see them concerned, as it does reflect on them in the future.
> 
> I liked Janet Albrechtsen comments on the show.




I agree Tink. one of them really had a go at Wong, was good to see some of the young aware of things that matter.


----------



## bigdog (19 August 2013)

Where did they get tonight's audience from?

How many Aussies asked questions; A: not many!!

Surprised by no questions about illegal immigrants from this audience!!!

They all seemed to clap for all presenters!!!


----------



## MrBurns (19 August 2013)

I wasn't impressed with Hockey to be honest.


----------



## sptrawler (19 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I wasn't impressed with Hockey to be honest.




Lucky only 200 people watch it.


----------



## tinhat (19 August 2013)

bigdog said:


> Where did they get tonight's audience from?
> 
> How many Aussies asked questions; A: not many!!
> 
> ...




There weren't many from Richmond thank goodness. Is that where the white anglo-saxon's like to congregate? Or do you just barricade yourself away from the modern world behind your white picket fence, reminiscing about Menzies, eating lamb chops and two veg (with a dash of worcestershire sauce on special occasions) while listening to 2GB and watching "A Current Affair" for the latest stories on dole bludging youth and miracle arthritis treatments?

Don't worry, I understand that its not fair that these days these days real Aussies like you get called racist and bigoted by all those Asians and Wogs and Middle-Easterners they've let into the country. It's just not cricket.


----------



## Kryzz (19 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I wasn't impressed with Hockey to be honest.




I thought Hockey killed it.

That smug look and air of arrogance is second only to Peter Costello.


----------



## Muschu (20 August 2013)

Watching now in the nation's true HQ in WA. (Well ....)

How dreadful is it that our politics is at a level where degradation of opposition is proposed as the prime measure of advancing the country?

Appalling on all counts.


----------



## noco (20 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> I wasn't impressed with Hockey to be honest.




Yes Burnsie I tend to agree.

Hockey missed some opportunities last night particularly when Bowen tried to make out that Queensland after sacking an overloaded public service by some 14,000 had contributed to the national unemployment figure when in actual  fact unemployment fell in Queesland. Some 18,500 jobs were created. I could not believe he had not punished Bowen over the unemployment figures of the two remaining Labor states of Tasmania and South Australia where unemployment is at an all time high of 8% and 7.2% respectively.

Whilst I know this next bit might be a bit off topic, I can not miss the opportunity to comment on the following. 

I noticed one young immigrant complaining about availabilty of affordable housing and what was the Coalition going to do about it. The opportunities for young people to buy a house is better now than they have ever been and can buy a house and land package on 10% deposit with low interest rates over a 30 year period. The discussion sort of revolved around how couples in the 50's to the 70s' as to how easy it was for them in that era and that is far from reality.

I built my first house on land that I owned outright for 2,240 pounds ($4480). Th maximum we could borrow was 1500 pounds ($3000) so we virtually had to have a deposit of 740 pounds ($1480) or one third. We cut our cloth to suit our pocket and moved into the house with no hot water system, no internal painting, no floor coverings no kitchen and we slept on the floor for 9 months. I cut my lawn with a scythe because we could not afford a push mower. My wage at the time was 16 pounds ($32) a week. Repayments on the house was 9 pound ($18 ) per month over 20 years on 5% interest.

In 1970 I tried my hand at real estate for 12 months and in that year the banks had to money to lend for housing and all loans were acquired from building societies. You had to have 25 % deposit and the BS would only take 25% from the male wages for repayments over 25 years. The wife's wages were not even considered and single girls had no chance of applying for a loan. Our sales reps had to qualify buyers before they were taken out for an inspection. So if you had $2000 deposit and $400 for legal fees and stamp duty you were shown houses of $8,000 or less.

So for young people to say us oldies got it easy, they are obviously born with a silver spoon in thier mouths and disallusioned. I am sure they expect free handouts from the reigning government of the day.

I say to those youngster get off you **** and work hard for your dreams just as us oldies did 50 and 60 years ago.


----------



## MrBurns (20 August 2013)

Hockey wasn't arguing like a man who knew his stuff, it was all fluff, "$900.
Cheques" repeated over and over till the audience were groaning.

As one tweeted "where is Costello when you need him"

He,ll be treasurer but I hope he's up to it

Just watching Rudd on the ABC ...what a tosser, he's lost the plot and the election.


----------



## MrBurns (20 August 2013)

The ABC are showing the entire long winded lame effort by Rudd
It's just pathetic.


----------



## boofhead (20 August 2013)

I liked the twitter comment about the Coalition lucky to have lost the 2007 election.


----------



## drsmith (20 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Hockey wasn't arguing like a man who knew his stuff, it was all fluff, "$900.
> Cheques" repeated over and over till the audience were groaning.
> 
> As one tweeted "where is Costello when you need him"
> ...



My hope is that he was just dumbing down his comments to suit the format of the debate. He as also trying not to give too much away given how close the Coalition are keeping the budget cards to their chest.

That being said, he clearly doesn't seem to be on top of his portfolio to the same extent as say Scott Morrison and Malcolm Turnbull are over their respective portfolios. Joe Hockey had so much more material from which to be critical of Labor's economic record than the constant references to the $900 stimulus payments.

In terms of confidence in fiscal management, I would rate last night's effort as a nil all draw and that's with Chris Bowen saddled with defending Labor's record in government. Between the lines, they're both hiding what they'll do to attempt to achieve fiscal balance.

I suspect the Coalition will release its election costing during the advertising blackout period in the last 72 hours of the campaign.


----------



## drsmith (20 August 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Just watching Rudd on the ABC ...what a tosser, he's lost the plot and the election.



There's nothing calm in the ranting in the video in the ABC link below. He seems angry.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-08-20/election-live3a-august-20/4898310

I suppose it works for the party faithful.


----------



## dutchie (1 September 2013)

Krudd to appear (on his own) on next Q&A.

No doubt it will be a fair and balanced audience (ha ha ha ha ha ha)

No doubt there will be some judicious and in depth questions (ha ha ha ha ha ha)

Your ABC giving their man a last chance to sprout his bile (oops I meant wisdom) (ha ha ha ha ha ha )

Should be a hoot.


----------



## MrBurns (3 September 2013)

Tony Jones had a go last night, in fact several, to his credit about Labours claim of a Lib $70b budget hole being discredited by the ABC fact check but Rudd just babbled on about Abbott not disclosing his cuts as usual, he's very difficult to listen to, it's all the same, lick lips folks.

The Pastor that challenged him on Gay marriage was put down and the ABC now claims that response by Rudd has gone viral, obviously hoping for a Gillard type positive reaction.

The response was very similar to one the show West Wing, I wonder if the "Pastor" was a set up.


----------



## noco (5 September 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Tony Jones had a go last night, in fact several, to his credit about Labours claim of a Lib $70b budget hole being discredited by the ABC fact check but Rudd just babbled on about Abbott not disclosing his cuts as usual, he's very difficult to listen to, it's all the same, lick lips folks.
> 
> The Pastor that challenged him on Gay marriage was put down and the ABC now claims that response by Rudd has gone viral, obviously hoping for a Gillard type positive reaction.
> 
> The response was very similar to one the show West Wing, I wonder if the "Pastor" was a set up.




Rudd had misinterpreted the Bible, humilated the Pastor and alienated many Christians. 

That stupid statement would have cost him dearly.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...iss-will-cost-pm/story-e6frgd0x-1226710891957


----------



## MrBurns (9 September 2013)

Kroger just gave a blistering attack on Rudd and Labor and there was silence from the audience.

Plibersek gave a mediocre defence and got thunderous applause.

The figures they give for breakup of the audience is rubbish, everyone there is a Labor supporter.


----------



## pixel (9 September 2013)

noco said:


> Rudd had misinterpreted the Bible, humilated the Pastor and alienated many Christians.
> 
> That stupid statement would have cost him dearly.
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...iss-will-cost-pm/story-e6frgd0x-1226710891957




I can't agree with either statement, noco
wrt the bible, Rudd went straight to the essence of Christianity. If Jesus felt it OK to dine with sinners and associate with prostitutes and usurers, surely no self-respecting Christian can reject gays.
The good pastor humiliated himself by challenging gay rights in such a hypocritical way.
If Christians feel alienated by that, let them join other intolerant sects or convert to Islam.

If the Australian attacked him along those lines, that's par for the course. I wouldn't expect anything else from them.


----------



## sptrawler (9 September 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Kroger just gave a blistering attack on Rudd and Labor and there was silence from the audience.
> 
> Plibersek gave a mediocre defence and got thunderous applause.
> 
> The figures they give for breakup of the audience is rubbish, everyone there is a Labor supporter.




Well someone had better tell them the coalition is paying their wages now. 
That is unless the press union wants to buy out the ABC. lol


----------



## tinhat (9 September 2013)

sptrawler said:


> Well someone had better tell them the coalition is paying their wages now.
> That is unless the press union wants to buy out the ABC. lol




We pay their wages.


----------



## wayneL (10 September 2013)

tinhat said:


> We pay their wages.




*WE* expect neutrality then.


----------



## Logique (10 September 2013)

MrBurns said:


> Kroger just gave a blistering attack on Rudd and Labor and there was silence from the audience.
> Plibersek gave a mediocre defence and got thunderous applause.
> The figures they give for breakup of the audience is rubbish, everyone there is a Labor supporter.



Ah yes the unique Q&A balanced audience.  

Plibersek twisted and turned, rolled her eyes and and changed the subject, but Kroger and Brandis were too sharp for her. She had a face like thunder at the end. 

Some ALP leadership candidate. 

Repeat today on ABC1 at 1pm


----------



## DocK (10 September 2013)

Logique said:


> Ah yes the unique Q&A balanced audience.
> 
> Plibersek twisted and turned, rolled her eyes and and changed the subject, but Kroger and Brandis were too sharp for her. She had a face like thunder at the end.
> 
> ...




She certainly is letting her frustrations show.  Her general demeanour on Q&A has changed over the past year or so imo, from an articulate, composed, polite and reasoned polly to an overly-aggressive, combative, and at times downright rude person with her constant interrupting and theatrics.  Even though I disagree with her politics, I used to quite like her personally, but my opinion has changed recently.  She'd give Christopher Pyne a run for his money in the "talking over the top of fellow panellists" stakes, but does it with less good humour in my opinion.  

As to the applause that greeted her answer on the Labor leadership issue, I took it to be overwhelming agreement from the audience with her assertion that Labor should keep their dirty laundry out of the public view, and finally get the message that the public were fed up to the back teeth with the constant leadership issues.  I certainly didn't see it as approval of Labor per se, but agreement that they need to take a good hard look at themselves if they want to be a viable opposition, with maybe a bit of approval for her refusal to be drawn into the Rudd character assassination/justification debate.  She did show some grace and dignity in that instance, and the rest of her party would be well-advised to take note of the approval her stance received.


----------



## Julia (10 September 2013)

DocK said:


> She certainly is letting her frustrations show.  Her general demeanour on Q&A has changed over the past year or so imo, from an articulate, composed, polite and reasoned polly to an overly-aggressive, combative, and at times downright rude person with her constant interrupting and theatrics.  Even though I disagree with her politics, I used to quite like her personally, but my opinion has changed recently.  She'd give Christopher Pyne a run for his money in the "talking over the top of fellow panellists" stakes, but does it with less good humour in my opinion.



I've only got around to watching Q & A this evening, and agree re Plibersek above.  She was the only panellist to be rude, unusually.



> As to the applause that greeted her answer on the Labor leadership issue, I took it to be overwhelming agreement from the audience with her assertion that Labor should keep their dirty laundry out of the public view, and finally get the message that the public were fed up to the back teeth with the constant leadership issues.  I certainly didn't see it as approval of Labor per se, but agreement that they need to take a good hard look at themselves if they want to be a viable opposition,



Yes, my interpretation also.

After some of the comments about this program I was expecting it to be partisan and quite vicious.  I didn't find it so at all, and rather it came across to me as one of the more rational and sensible in the series.
eg for the first time ever, I agreed with Lenore Taylor's remarks in contrast to screaming "left wing looney" every time I saw her on "The Insiders".
Only Tanya Plibersek seemed to me to still be attempting to  present the party dogma, but at the same time, she did a good job of refusing to be coerced into joining with so many of her colleagues in making personal recommendations re what Rudd should do now.

George Brandis and Graeme Richardson are always good value imo.


----------



## Logique (11 September 2013)

Looks like the leadership ticket will be Shorten with Plibersek as deputy.


----------



## MrBurns (11 September 2013)

Logique said:


> Looks like the leadership ticket will be Shorten with Plibersek as deputy.




Shorten is a backstabbing dill.

Albanese is a spluttering fool.

Mark Dreyfus would be best.


----------



## noco (26 November 2013)

I watched Q&A last night and could not help notice the guilty look on that insignificant ex Immigartion Minister come Treasurer come tempory leader of the Labor Party during the " DISCUSSION ON THE SPY SCANDAL".

Jones rarely brought him into the dicussion and I don't recall anyone asking him the embarrassing question when the spying took place.

I would liked to have seen how he would have asnwered the question.


----------



## drsmith (2 April 2014)

With panellist selection like this, the ABC is just distancing itself from the mainstream.

http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...y-really-bad-check-it-out-we-are-so-lame.html


----------



## DB008 (2 April 2014)

drsmith said:


> With panellist selection like this, the ABC is just distancing itself from the mainstream.
> 
> http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...y-really-bad-check-it-out-we-are-so-lame.html




I don't even watch Q&A anymore. Rubbish


----------



## noco (2 April 2014)

drsmith said:


> With panellist selection like this, the ABC is just distancing itself from the mainstream.
> 
> http://www.michaelsmithnews.com/201...y-really-bad-check-it-out-we-are-so-lame.html




This Tony Jones is getting out of hand and testing the Coalition as to how far they can go..

It is an absolute joke having such people on the panel last night who were intent on discrediting Tony Abbott.

Time for Malcom Turnbull to take some decisive action to curtail the rubbish coming out of QandA....they must be given the ultimatum "SHAPE UP OR SHIP OUT".


----------



## noco (3 April 2014)

noco said:


> This Tony Jones is getting out of hand and testing the Coalition as to how far they can go..
> 
> It is an absolute joke having such people on the panel last night who were intent on discrediting Tony Abbott.
> 
> Time for Malcom Turnbull to take some decisive action to curtail the rubbish coming out of QandA....they must be given the ultimatum "SHAPE UP OR SHIP OUT".





As commented in the link below, I also believe Tony Abbott is giving the ABC, and in particular Tony Jones, enough rope to hang themselves.....It is only a matter of time.......We might even see Tony Jones go on some unexpected long service leave like that other leftie Barry Cassidy has done recently .  

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/abcs-defence-left-me-laughing/story-fni0ffxg-1226872720521


----------



## SirRumpole (3 April 2014)

noco said:


> As commented in the link below, I also believe Tony Abbott is giving the ABC, and in particular Tony Jones, enough rope to hang themselves.....It is only a matter of time.......We might even see Tony Jones go on some unexpected long service leave like that other leftie Barry Cassidy has done recently .
> 
> http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/opinion/abcs-defence-left-me-laughing/story-fni0ffxg-1226872720521




Are you resorting to agreeing with yourself now noco ?


----------



## noco (3 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Are you resorting to agreeing with yourself now noco ?




You seem to be talking in riddles Rumpy.


----------



## Calliope (25 April 2014)

The foul-mouthed, Green voting anarchist, Vanessa Badham back on Q & A.



> A BAD DAY FOR Q & A ”” AND YOU PAY Tim Blair
> 
> THE ABC has defended the decision by its Q & A chat program to invite little-known playwright and anarchist Van Badham on to Monday night’s show.
> 
> ...




http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...d-european-jaunt/story-fni0xqrc-1226895408012


----------



## drsmith (25 April 2014)

Calliope said:


> The foul-mouthed, Green voting anarchist, Vanessa Badham back on Q & A.
> 
> http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...d-european-jaunt/story-fni0xqrc-1226895408012



Malcolm Turnbull will be on as well and I doubt he's there to talk about the NBN.


----------



## DB008 (29 April 2014)

drsmith said:


> Malcolm Turnbull will be on as well and I doubt he's there to talk about the NBN.




So, how did last nights Q&A go?

I don't watch it anymore, but I saw this going around....

*ABC actively censors NBN issue on Q&A*



> The ABC’s flagship panel discussion program Q&A last night appeared to actively censor the National Broadband Network issue from being discussed on an episode featuring Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull; ignoring a flood of questions from viewers prior to its filming, leaving the issue out of pre-show briefing documents and shutting down discussion on air.






> Analysis of the questions submitted to the show before the episode went to air and published online on the ABC’s site showed that as a consequence of the two panellists’ participation, Q&A was inundated with at least many dozens of questions regarding the NBN as a topic, in both text and video form. It is unclear how many NBN-related questions in total were submitted, but it is clear that the issue was one of the most popular ones one in the pre-show questions submitted, with a list of the most recent 200 questions submitted up until yesterday midday showing some 48 mentions of the term “NBN”. A number of video questions were also submitted discussing the NBN.






> However, the show did not choose to air any of the NBN questions, instead choosing to focus on the Federal Budget, taxation issues, ABC funding, media ownership, free speech rights and the Joint Strike Fighter program. Turnbull repeatedly stated during the program that he found it difficult to comment on many of the issues, as he was not the relevant Cabinet Minister.
> 
> In addition, pre-show briefing materials distributed to panellists and attendees before last night’s episode of Q&A also contained no mention of the NBN. One brief communication on Monday focused only on a small number of issues such as taxation, online abuse on social media sites and criticism by technology giant Google of surveillance practices.




http://delimiter.com.au/2014/04/29/abc-actively-censors-nbn-issue-qa/


----------



## SirRumpole (30 April 2014)

DB008 said:


> So, how did last nights Q&A go?
> 
> I don't watch it anymore, but I saw this going around....
> 
> ...




There certainly were no questions regarding the NBN.

Q&A has a habit of inviting foreign guests who, while they provide a different perspective on local issues, shouldn't be required to sit through dozens of questions like "why hasn't the NBN got to my area yet ?", however that is letting Turnbull and the government off the hook.

There should be a Q&A that predominately discusses the nation's largest infrastructure project, warts and all, and the fact that this hasn't happened indicates that pressure is being applied on the ABC not to allow debate on the question.


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> There should be a Q&A that predominately discusses the nation's largest infrastructure project, warts and all, and the fact that this hasn't happened indicates that pressure is being applied on the ABC not to allow debate on the question.




By whom? 

It was interesting to note that your favourite Greenie, The Guardian's obnoxious Van Badham, was able to get through the program without calling Tony Abbott a c**t as she usually does on her tweets.


----------



## SirRumpole (30 April 2014)

Calliope said:


> By whom?
> 
> It was interesting to note that your favourite Greenie, The Guardian's obnoxious Van Badham, was able to get through the program without calling Tony Abbott a c**t as she usually does on her tweets.




In fact I had never heard of Van Badham, and by the name I thought she was a man until I saw her.


----------



## Calliope (30 April 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> In fact I had never heard of Van Badham, and by the name I thought she was a man until I saw her.




OK. Her name is Vanessa. No man could be that crude. I'll bring you up to date on your fellow Greenie. You may have heard her on Q&A decrying bigotry. Turnbull referred to her social media contributions  

Read this and all is revealed. She is truly a disgusting piece of work. 

http://auspolhate.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/van-badham-vanbadham-and-her-endless-abuse/


----------



## SirRumpole (30 April 2014)

Calliope said:


> OK. Her name is Vanessa. No man could be that crude. I'll bring you up to date on your fellow Greenie. You may have heard her on Q&A decrying bigotry. Turnbull referred to her social media contributions
> 
> Read this and all is revealed. She is truly a disgusting piece of work.
> 
> http://auspolhate.wordpress.com/2014/01/15/van-badham-vanbadham-and-her-endless-abuse/




Yes, you are right. No one needs that standard of 'debate'.

I wonder why people like this get noticed by the media so much. I would have hoped that the ABC had more taste.


----------



## Ijustnewit (6 May 2014)

Great to see our tax dollars supporting this rabble.

www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-05/q-and-a-protesters-target-pyne/5432200


----------



## SirRumpole (6 May 2014)

Ijustnewit said:


> Great to see our tax dollars supporting this rabble.




Yes, I object to my tax diollars supporting people like Christopher Pyne.


----------



## Calliope (6 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I object to my tax diollars supporting people like Christopher Pyne.




Obviously you were one of the rabble. Were you organised by GetUp?


----------



## SirRumpole (6 May 2014)

Calliope said:


> Obviously you were one of the rabble. Were you organised by GetUp?




Sorry, I slept through it live and watched it later.

Not a tactic I agree with, but then students have always been protestorial.


----------



## pixel (6 May 2014)

After his squirming non-reply to the first questioner, I thought 'well done, let Pyne dig his own grave and prove himself the nincompoop as which he comes across. Everyone with half a brain will realise his futile attempts to shirk the real issues.'
And then, the next questioner started to turn the tide by impatiently interrupting panel members. 

When the rubble on the balcony started their rant, showing they didn't have half a brain between them, I knew they had blown it and turned every tax paying adult - University-educated or not - against themselves. Yes, education is an investment in our Nation's future. But it requires the will to get an education and work for it; not simply demand it as one's right with no consideration for the responsibilities attached or the Nation's expectation of future dividend.


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2014)

Ijustnewit said:


> Great to see our tax dollars supporting this rabble.
> 
> www.abc.net.au/news/2014-05-05/q-and-a-protesters-target-pyne/5432200



What got me was that the question was of government policy asked to the education minister who was on the panel.

Regardless of what had come before, he should have been given first right of reply as the question was directed at him.


----------



## Calliope (6 May 2014)

pixel said:


> When the rubble on the balcony started their rant, showing they didn't have half a brain between them, I knew they had blown it and turned every tax paying adult - University-educated or not - against themselves.




Yes. Obama got it right;



> *“When ignorant folks want to advertise their ignorance you don’t really have to do anything, you just let them talk,” said President Obama, “and that’s what happened here.”*




And that's what happened here too.


----------



## IFocus (6 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Yes, I object to my tax diollars supporting people like Christopher Pyne.





At the 1993 Australian federal election, *aged 25*, Pyne was elected to the Division of Sturt in the House of Representatives


----------



## Macquack (6 May 2014)

IFocus said:


> At the 1993 Australian federal election, *aged 25*, Pyne was elected to the Division of Sturt in the House of Representatives




I thought that obnoxious little turd (of the first order) was older than that.


----------



## noco (6 May 2014)

Macquack said:


> I thought that obnoxious little turd (of the first order) was older than that.




Oh please Macquack, don't call Christopher Pyne an *OBNOXIOUS LITTLE TURD You know Basilio does not like that type of talk.,,,,,it is not becoming of you.*


----------



## Calliope (6 May 2014)

Macquack said:


> I thought that obnoxious little turd (of the first order) was older than that.




The supporters of the immature obnoxious turds who took over Q&A are now coming out of the closet, and it's no surprise that they are all our loony left usual suspects.


----------



## Macquack (6 May 2014)

Calliope said:


> The supporters of the immature obnoxious turds who took over Q&A are now coming out of the closet, and it's no surprise that they are all our loony left usual suspects.




So you are a fan of the Pain. Sucker.


----------



## Julia (6 May 2014)

I can really understand why people come to this forum, read some of the threads where insults are exchanged as above, and decide to go somewhere else.


----------



## drsmith (6 May 2014)

Ol' Larry thinks it was an ABC ambush that went wrong.

http://pickeringpost.com/story/q-a-ambush-backfires-on-the-jones-boy/3199


----------



## Calliope (6 May 2014)

Julia said:


> I can really understand why people come to this forum, read some of the threads where insults are exchanged as above, and decide to go somewhere else.




:topic


----------



## Macquack (7 May 2014)

Julia said:


> I can really understand why people come to this forum, read some of the threads where insults are exchanged as above, and *decide to go somewhere else*.




Where do they go? Back to their ipods, and who cares anyway (except Joe).

Loosen up a bit Julia, this is not government, although parliament is usually more entertaining.


----------



## sptrawler (7 May 2014)

From my experience of university, when going there to pick up my wife, after evening classes(she worked during the day).

I couldn't get over the great tavern they had on campus, full of young aussies having a rave, I wished I was twenty years younger.

Funy enough, the library was always full of Asian students.

I would guess things haven't changed much, in the last 15 years, going by the crowd at Q & A


----------



## Joe Blow (7 May 2014)

Macquack said:


> I thought that obnoxious little turd (of the first order) was older than that.






Calliope said:


> The supporters of the immature obnoxious turds who took over Q&A are now coming out of the closet, and it's no surprise that they are all our loony left usual suspects.






Macquack said:


> So you are a fan of the Pain. Sucker.






Julia said:


> I can really understand why people come to this forum, read some of the threads where insults are exchanged as above, and decide to go somewhere else.






Macquack said:


> Where do they go? Back to their ipods, and who cares anyway (except Joe).
> 
> Loosen up a bit Julia, this is not government, although parliament is usually more entertaining.




Yes, I do care, and Julia does have a point. Sometimes, political threads end up reading like they were written by a bunch of pimple faced teenagers, although it's usually only a few repeat offenders that drag down the level of debate.

Is there really any need to describe someone as an "obnoxious little turd" when there are many other, more imaginative ways of characterising your displeasure with a political figure?

I would appreciate it if those guilty of dragging down the level of debate - and they are few and far between at ASF - make an effort to raise it up a notch or two instead. It's much more pleasurable for all concerned to be involved in a mature, thoughtful discussion, rather than a foul mouthed schoolyard slanging match.


----------



## noco (7 May 2014)

Joe Blow said:


> Yes, I do care, and Julia does have a point. Sometimes, political threads end up reading like they were written by a bunch of pimple faced teenagers, although it's usually only a few repeat offenders that drag down the level of debate.
> 
> Is there really any need to describe someone as an "obnoxious little turd" when there are many other, more imaginative ways of characterising your displeasure with a political figure?
> 
> I would appreciate it if those guilty of dragging down the level of debate - and they are few and far between at ASF - make an effort to raise it up a notch or two instead. It's much more pleasurable for all concerned to be involved in a mature, thoughtful discussion, rather than a foul mouthed schoolyard slanging match.




+1 Joe.......I am so pleased you have bought this to the notice of the offenders.


----------



## Calliope (7 May 2014)

noco said:


> +1 Joe.......I am so pleased you have bought this to the notice of the offenders.




Me too. But will they heed it? I doubt it. Such is life.


----------



## noco (10 May 2014)

These young uni student activist who launched into a disgraceful demonstration on Q&A have no doubt been influenced in a very subtle way by Communist inspired Professors and Tutors.

I have proof of this happening in JCU Townsville and I believe to a greater degree in Monash Uni in Melbourne. 

They are encouraged to rebel and demonstrate against all conservative governments......I am also certain that socialist left Tony Jones was well aware of their presence but was not prepared for the ruckus they finally  caused to the program. 


http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...-blogs:mini-blogs|3|heading|homepage|homepage


----------



## SirRumpole (10 May 2014)

noco said:


> These young uni student activist who launched into a disgraceful demonstration on Q&A have no doubt been influenced in a very subtle way by Communist inspired Professors and Tutors.
> 
> I have proof of this happening in JCU Townsville and I believe to a greater degree in Monash Uni in Melbourne.




And your proof is ?


----------



## Julia (10 May 2014)

I only watched it last night and was astonished that the chanting was allowed to go on for so long.
Surely a competent floor manager/director would have simply switched to a promo or music (as they eventually did) soon after it was clear the protestors were very well organised.


----------



## noco (11 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> And your proof is ?




My proof is from a young medical student friend of mine....you will have to be satisfied with that.

Pretty obvious you doubt my word.


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2014)

noco said:


> My proof is from a young medical student friend of mine....you will have to be satisfied with that.
> 
> Pretty obvious you doubt my word.




Maybe your medical student friend is a member of the Liberal Party and is as biased as you are. Your proof is hardly definitive, but you seem shocked that anyone would have the audacity to ask for it.


----------



## noco (11 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Maybe your medical student friend is a member of the Liberal Party and is as biased as you are. Your proof is hardly definitive, but you seem shocked that anyone would have the audacity to ask for it.




Rumpy, I have no idea what the political belief or following this young uni student has....that is his business.

The link below certainly gives an indication of how the Socialist left (Communism ) works in universities.

The Sydney University  ALP club have been urged to register to be in the audience on the 19th May when Joe Hockey will be a guest......No doubt the Greens (Communists) and the comrades of the Greens are lining up to once again disrupt the Q&A show with every intent to some how humiliate and discredit the Treasurer.

Don't miss the 19th Rumpy...it will be a great show of strength.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...eraldsun/comments/qa_lets_itself_be_hijacked/


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2014)

noco said:


> Don't miss the 19th Rumpy...it will be a great show of strength.




Will Joe be handing around cigars after the birth of his budget do you think ?


----------



## Calliope (11 May 2014)

The panel on Insiders this morning was shocked and horrified when Joe was caught smoking a cigar.  Apparently cigar smoking is a symbol of the rich and powerful and just illustrates the widening gap between the rich ruling class like Hockey and the poor welfare recipients he will be slugging on Tuesday.

No doubt it will be a fertile ground for the Q&A audience.


----------



## noco (11 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Will Joe be handing around cigars after the birth of his budget do you think ?




This a bit off topic but I have to answer you facetious cigar remark. 

Well Rumpy, I am not sure how much a cigar costs these days but I am sure they would not cost near as much as $900....you should have voted Kevvie back in for that kind of service.

And if you wanted  a budget surplus of $1.2 billion in 2013/14, you should have voted back in the "WORLDS GREATEST TREASURER"....dear old Swannie....Remember he and the Fabian society girl said 500 times  they would have a surplus last year on time as promised.

Ah yes and look what you have now, a terrible conservative government............a blow out in the budget of $123 billion.......a debt of $667 billion......broken promises.....the slashing of the old pension....the freezing of politician and public servants salaries....increased taxes.....higher petrol prices......they're gonna close schools and hospitals......they're gonna tax the rich.....they're gonna make you pay more to see a doctor.....they're gonna close those terrible prison camps that house the boat people......they did that inhumane thing of stopping the illegal refugees.....they stopped the drownings at sea.......they can't scrap the CARBON DIOXIDE TAX......they can't scrap the mining tax.....ah yes I could go on and on but we do still have freedom of speech and we can demonstrate on Q&A.

So next election we should all vote back in the Greens and the comrades of the Greens.......open the gates again to refugees......close all the coal mines......close all those dirty polluting power stations....cook your dinner over an open wood fire in the back yard.....take all the cars of the road and use the horse and buggy like the Amish people do......no TV, radios and telephone...... clamp down on freedom of speech.....demonstrate on Q&A and you could finish up in prison...nationalize the banks, mining, farms, all industry......demolish the union movement (we won't need them anymore)...

Ah yes back to the good old days like it was prior 1901.

Down with Liberalism and up with Communism........the way to go and "PIGS MIGHT FLY".....


----------



## McLovin (11 May 2014)

Calliope said:


> The panel on Insiders this morning was shocked and horrified when Joe was caught smoking a cigar.





The faux outrage is hilarious. It was only at the beginning of this month that the Herald ran a story on Cormann which included this...

It hardly seems like it was a big secret.



			
				 smh.com.au; 02 May said:
			
		

> Straight after question time on the days that Federal Parliament sits, Hockey and Cormann slip out of the building to a private courtyard where they chat, each smoking a cigar.




Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...f-two-lives-20140502-zr37g.html#ixzz31Nqqm9ry


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2014)

noco said:


> This a bit off topic but I have to answer you factious cigar remark.




Did you mean FACTUAL ?

 

LOL to the rest of your rant, but it makes as much sense as you usually do, Keep it up, I'm sure at least one of you believes it


----------



## noco (11 May 2014)

Calliope said:


> The panel on Insiders this morning was shocked and horrified when Joe was caught smoking a cigar.  Apparently cigar smoking is a symbol of the rich and powerful and just illustrates the widening gap between the rich ruling class like Hockey and the poor welfare recipients he will be slugging on Tuesday.
> 
> No doubt it will be a fertile ground for the Q&A audience.




But Calliope, smoking a cigar is not as bad as spending HSU union money on prostitutes ......after all Hawkie used to smoke cigars.


----------



## noco (11 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Did you mean FACTUAL ?
> 
> 
> 
> LOL to the rest of your rant, but it makes as much sense as you usually do, Keep it up, I'm sure at least one of you believes it





No the word was facetious, meaning according to the Oxford dictionary intending or meant to be amusing esp. inopportunely.....I happened to mistype the "E" and spell check did not pick it up..... Yes we do have some SMART AR$ES in this world..


----------



## SirRumpole (11 May 2014)

noco said:


> No the word was facetious, meaning according to the Oxford dictionary intending or meant to be amusing esp. inopportunely.....I happened to mistype the "E" and spell check did not pick it up..... Yes we do have some SMART AR$ES in this world..




This time you mistyped the S.


----------



## noco (11 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> This time you mistyped the S.




OK I will let you have the last word....I am sure that will make you happy.


----------



## sptrawler (13 May 2014)

I had to laugh when Alannah Mactiernan acted shocked that people can access their superannuation at 60 years old.
How come Tony didn't ask her how old politicians have to be to access their superannuation. 
I'm sure she will be on a W.A state funded tax free pension.


----------



## noco (13 May 2014)

Last night's Q&A was just another humiliating hate session and beat up on the Abbott "BROKEN PROMISES".....They certainly did not give Dr.Sharon Stone any favors.

It is the same old story.....everyone wants hands outs, social welfare, a strong economy and at the same time expect continued infrastructure but when it comes to raising revenue to pay for their wants, there is opposition from various quarters as to how the money should be accumulated.

I don't know why Coalition members even bother to accept invitations  on Q&A.....they should simply boycott the show and let it fall on its backside.


----------



## Macquack (16 May 2014)

Joe Blow said:


> Is there really any need to describe someone as an "obnoxious little turd" when there are many other, more imaginative ways of characterising your displeasure with a political figure?
> 
> I would appreciate it if those guilty of dragging down the level of debate - and they are few and far between at ASF - make an effort to raise it up a notch or two instead. It's much more pleasurable for all concerned to be involved in a mature, thoughtful discussion, rather than a foul mouthed schoolyard slanging match.




Take this up with Christopher Pyne.

Lowering the bar in parliament, to an all time low, Pyne calls Shorten a c---.

Judge for youself.

*http://media.smh.com.au/news/federal-politics/cbomb-you-be-the-judge-5426959.html*


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2014)

Macquack said:


> Take this up with Christopher Pyne.
> 
> Lowering the bar in parliament, to an all time low, Pyne calls Shorten a c---.
> 
> ...




I didn't know Pyne was a member of ASF?

Joe, you must ban him immediately. From now on, anybody caught swearing, anywhere out there in the community will be banned from ASF.


----------



## dutchie (16 May 2014)

Macquack said:


> Take this up with Christopher Pyne.
> 
> Lowering the bar in parliament, to an all time low, Pyne calls Shorten a c---.
> 
> ...




 This *may* change your mind.

http://blogs.crikey.com.au/fullysic/2014/05/15/did-c-pyne-drop-the-c-bomb/


----------



## drsmith (16 May 2014)

I watched question time that day.

Christopher Pyne said grub.


----------



## DB008 (16 May 2014)

Macquack said:


> Take this up with Christopher Pyne.
> 
> Lowering the bar in parliament, to an all time low, Pyne calls Shorten a c---.
> 
> ...






wayneL said:


> I didn't know Pyne was a member of ASF?
> 
> Joe, you must ban him immediately. From now on, anybody caught swearing, anywhere out there in the community will be banned from ASF.






dutchie said:


> This *may* change your mind.
> 
> http://blogs.crikey.com.au/fullysic/2014/05/15/did-c-pyne-drop-the-c-bomb/






drsmith said:


> I watched question time that day.
> 
> Christopher Pyne said grub.




Hmm....make up your own mind....


----------



## drsmith (16 May 2014)

David Marr at his finest ??

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...eraldsun/comments/david_marr_bullies_a_woman/


----------



## sptrawler (16 May 2014)

drsmith said:


> David Marr at his finest ??
> 
> http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...eraldsun/comments/david_marr_bullies_a_woman/




That's fine, it's only an issue when it's Abbott. 
Funny I've never seen Abbott, behave anywhere near that badly.


----------



## drsmith (16 May 2014)

sptrawler said:


> That's fine, it's only an issue when it's Abbott.
> Funny I've never seen Abbott, behave anywhere near that badly.



Dishing that sort of stuff out to Penny Wong would be interesting to watch.

I don't think she'd purr in response.


----------



## noco (17 May 2014)

It was the same low life commo bar$tard$ who demonstrated against Christopher Pyne on Q&A....They tried to mob Julie Bishop....typical tactics of these people who do not believe in democracy.......It is all about aggravation, intimidation, disrespect and invasion of privacy.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ydney-university/story-fnihslxi-1226920683558


----------



## noco (17 May 2014)

noco said:


> It was the same low life commo bar$tard$ who demonstrated against Christopher Pyne on Q&A....They tried to mob Julie Bishop....typical tactics of these people who do not believe in democracy.......It is all about aggravation, intimidation, disrespect and invasion of privacy.
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...ydney-university/story-fnihslxi-1226920683558




And more from the Australian on these disgraceful low lives.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ydney-university/story-fnmbxsc8-1226920697205


----------



## Macquack (17 May 2014)

drsmith said:


> I watched question time that day.
> 
> *Christopher Pyne said grub*.




I think it is time you got a new hearing aid.


----------



## drsmith (17 May 2014)

Macquack said:


> I think it is time you got a new hearing aid.



I don't want one that makes words sound like something other than what was said.


----------



## Macquack (17 May 2014)

drsmith said:


> I don't want one that makes words sound like something other than what was said.




The word "grub", does not start with the letter "c" and end in the letter "t".

Blind faith, maybe you need a guide dog as well.


----------



## Calliope (17 May 2014)

Macquack said:


> The word "grub", does not start with the letter "c" and end in the letter "t".
> 
> Blind faith, maybe you need a guide dog as well.




You are full of surprises Macquack. I thought you would be the last person to complain about someone else using four letter words and "lowering the bar".


----------



## SirRumpole (17 May 2014)

Maybe Shorten should have asked the Speaker "did you hear what that c*nt just called me ?"


----------



## Macquack (17 May 2014)

Calliope said:


> You are full of surprises Macquack. I thought you would be the last person to complain about someone else using four letter words and "lowering the bar".




Us mere plebs don't set the bar, we are expected to jump over the bar while the law makers dive under it.

To be fair to Pyne, I think he meant to say "grub" but "c---" accidently slipped out. 

Just admitting it and carrying on would have given him a bit of credibility.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2014)

Macquack said:


> Us mere plebs don't set the bar, we are expected to jump over the bar while the law makers dive under it.
> 
> To be fair to Pyne, I think he meant to say "grub" but "c---" accidently slipped out.
> 
> Just admitting it and carrying on would have given him a bit of credibility.




That's the problem, the truth will out.


----------



## noco (17 May 2014)

Actually I am sure the C word does not really describe Shorten for after all a C is useful  and Shorten is the opposite, absolutely useless.


----------



## drsmith (17 May 2014)

Macquack said:


> The word "grub", does not start with the letter "c" and end in the letter "t".
> 
> Blind faith, maybe you need a guide dog as well.



I'm not interested in getting into a personal slanging match.

I can only repeat what I said before. I watched question time that day and saw (and heard) it as it happened. The  4-letter word starting with c was a media beat up which I note the Fairfax press was running the next day.

He said grub.


----------



## Macquack (17 May 2014)

drsmith said:


> I'm not interested in getting into a personal slanging match.
> 
> I can only repeat what I said before. I watched question time that day and saw (and heard) it as it happened. The  4-letter word starting with c was a media beat up which I note the Fairfax press was running the next day.
> 
> He said grub.




Don't rely on your memory of a fleeting moment.

Watch the video, listen and weep.


----------



## sptrawler (17 May 2014)

Macquack said:


> Don't rely on your memory of a fleeting moment.
> 
> Watch the video, listen and weep.




Let politicaly correct language get in the way of the truth.lol

You allowed a huge amount of lee way with Gillard. Get over yourself.

You ponce on about a word dropped by a minister, yet supported the outrageous attack on Abbott.

Her personal slagging of Abbott, was the worst display of abuse of political position in my lifetime. It was appalling and unsubstantiated.IMO

I'm yet to see anyone put together any footage or material to back up her attack. In due time it will be shown to be a disgracefull misuse of power.IMO 

Yet if Abbott had made the same outrageous statements, Fairfax would be all over it, give examples, Abbott makes sexist remarks and needs the book throwing at him.

The press needs to really have a good look at themselves.IMO

They are breeding a group of readers that think the garbage they pump out, is the 'truth', when in fact it is the story they feel will sell more papers.IMO

If that's not enough just look at the language used against Abbott over the budget, in the papers.

It is a weird world.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 May 2014)

> yet supported the outrageous attack on Abbott.




What outrageous attack, "misogynist"  ? Big deal. The rough and tumble of politics bought about by Abbott's disgraceful attack on the memory of Gillard's late father by his repetition of Alan Jones' "died of shame" comments.

Get over it yourself, both sides of politics sometimes play  nasty games. No one is pure.


----------



## noco (18 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> What outrageous attack, "misogynist"  ? Big deal. The rough and tumble of politics bought about by Abbott's disgraceful attack on the memory of Gillard's late father by his repetition of Alan Jones' "died of shame" comments.
> 
> Get over it yourself, both sides of politics sometimes play  nasty games. No one is pure.




Rumpy, you can call me an AH, a BA, a C or a Fer, but you can't take away my OBE.....That is an honor you have yet to enjoy...not many of us have it.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 May 2014)

noco said:


> Rumpy, you can call me an AH, a BA, a C or a Fer, but you can't take away my OBE.....That is an honor you have yet to enjoy...not many of us have it.




OBE, "Old Bastard Extraordinaire" ?

You thoroughly deserve it.


----------



## noco (18 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> OBE, "Old Bastard Extraordinaire" ?
> 
> You thoroughly deserve it.




No Rumpy, you are wrong.....guess again.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 May 2014)

noco said:


> No Rumpy, you are wrong.....guess again.




Tell me


----------



## noco (18 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Tell me




You have to be someone special to have an OBE......My local Federal MP sent me one over 3 years ago.....I am not sure whether you will get one or not.

I am goona keep you guessing.


----------



## noco (21 May 2014)

I have just heard on radio 2GB where two people applied for a Q&A ticket for last Monday's audience.

When asked what their political affiliation was and they revealed 'Liberal'..... they were told, we are sorry, all tickets have been allocated.

The next day the same two phoned again....when asked what political party they were affiliated with, the said the communist party......they were allocated tickets without hesitation.

So if you want to attend a Q&A show, don't what ever you do say you are Liberal supporter.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 May 2014)

noco said:


> I have just heard on radio 2GB where two people applied for a Q&A ticket for last Monday's audience.
> 
> When asked what their political affiliation was and they revealed 'Liberal'..... they were told, we are sorry, all tickets have been allocated.
> 
> ...




Pretty obvious that Liberal Party HQ got in fast and bought up their allocation.


----------



## noco (21 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Pretty obvious that Liberal Party HQ got in fast and bought up their allocation.




No No No Rumpy....you just don't get it do you?........Tony Jones needs socialist lefties......these two gentlemen were told, all tickets had been allocated....sold out....no more tickets left.

Please don't make excuses for that commo Jones.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (21 May 2014)

I find the debate around QANDA amusing.

It is a Show.

It's relevance depends on it's audience numbers, not on the process nor subject nor result of any debate on any individual "Show".

It is somewhat like a "Grand Cherokee Ad"

You know the kid is going to say to the Bogan, that he feels sick, but you just have to keep watching. 

Well done QANDA.

I feel sick.

gg


----------



## Duckman#72 (27 May 2014)

Q&A have out done themselves.  I tuned in last night to find that it was an "Arts Special", where the panel were various painters, writers, performers etc. 

I was expecting a strong anti-coalition, anti-budget, pro-refugee, pro-environmental element but even I was surprised at where the debate shifted to when discussing the recent gun rampage in California. 

For those who didn't watch the show , let's play multiple choice. Guess the right answer.

Tara Moss kicked off the debate by declaring that the terrible incident was a good example and representative of:

a) The disconnect between Hollywood and the average person in the community;
b) The increasing mental health problem and the lack of funding required to address the issue;
c) The increased number of high powered weapons easily purchased in the USA 
d) The inability of politicians to have the courage to address gun control
or 
e) *The result of misogynistic views and teachings of the Catholic church over hundreds of years.*

I don't want this to turn into a religious debate and the Christian church's certainly have a lot to answer for, however surely this is jumping the shark.   

Duckman


----------



## Judd (27 May 2014)

Awesome, Duckman.  So they didn't canvass the possibility it may be a result of:

I don't know right from wrong
I'm having a really bad hair day
I'm not getting what I believe I deserve
My life is not great
You are the cause of this
I am therefore justified in taking your life even though I may not even know you.


----------



## Julia (27 May 2014)

Judd said:


> Awesome, Duckman.  So they didn't canvass the possibility it may be a result of:
> 
> I don't know right from wrong
> I'm having a really bad hair day
> ...



They probably did, Judd.  You just might not have been clever enough to understand, given the extraordinary intellectual genius and cognitive capacity of the panel.


----------



## Duckman#72 (27 May 2014)

Julia said:


> They probably did, Judd.  You just might not have been clever enough to understand, given the extraordinary intellectual genius and cognitive capacity of the panel.




Yes, I should just be quiet and think myself privileged that I was able to listen to them.


----------



## DocK (27 May 2014)

I watched this episode this afternoon.  Tara Moss's comments made sense to me, given that she read from the gunman's own manifesto.  He left a lengthy manifesto and made a clip for youtube, posted prior to the shootings, detailing his reasons for wanting to "slaughter every spoiled, stuck-up blonde" in his sorority house as reprisal for the women who had rejected his sexual advances.  He was undoubtedly a nutter, but by his own admission the massacre was due to his hatred of women, and Moss made the point that it could therefore be labelled as a hate crime.  She then read a quote from the bible, in order to point out that this type of thinking has quite a lengthy history.   She went on to make the point that just because this one nutter is gone doesn't negate the fact that violence against women is prevalent in our society and the fact that it was a one-off event shouldn't prevent us from acknowledging that it was a "hate crime" and this type of attitude contributes to the very high levels of domestic violence, rape and sexual assaults reported daily in our cities.  

Clearly, Moss is focused on promoting discussion about violence against women, and was making a link between this mentally ill young man who said "I cannot kill every woman on earth, but I can deliver a devastating blow that will shake all of them to the core of their wicked hearts".   To lay the blame for this shooting massacre on "misogynistic views" is accurate, as the gunman himself was quite clear on this point.  So far as the church is concerned, the quote is accurate, and I've long felt the bible, the catholic church and indeed most religions have a deeply misogynistic past and are overdue for change.  

On the whole, I enjoyed this episode - it was nice not to have the usual bunch of pollies talking over the top of each other.  I especially enjoyed Tara Moss - she strikes me as an intelligent, articulate woman who is on a mission to promote discussion of issues important to a lot of women.  And to promote her book, naturally


----------



## SirRumpole (27 May 2014)

DocK said:


> I watched this episode this afternoon.




This fellow was certainly a nutter, but what do we say about Adrian Bayley, Simon Gittany and others like them.

They are not crazy enough to be in an insane asylum, but they have murdered just the same, out of a desire to have power over women. If they are not mentally ill, then there must be something in our society that makes them think that they have the right to treat women as possessions. 

Comments like "the women of Australia at home doing the ironing..." , the tv ads that show women as a secondary adjunct to male pursuits like drinking or watching footy, the fashion shows that concentrate on the clothes and make the models irrelevant, the availability of prostitutes on the street. These are all cultural memes that have become ingrained into society, so much that I think even women accept them and use them to their own advantage, but they accumulate in the minds of emotionally insecure young men and sometimes get exaggerated to the point where a woman is an object, not a person.

If we want to seriously tackle domestic violence and horrific murders like Jill Meagher, Virginia Morse or Anita Cobby, then something has to change.


----------



## IFocus (27 May 2014)

DocK said:


> I watched this episode this afternoon.  Tara Moss's comments made sense to me, given that she read from the gunman's own manifesto.  He left a lengthy manifesto and made a clip for youtube, posted prior to the shootings, detailing his reasons for wanting to "slaughter every spoiled, stuck-up blonde" in his sorority house as reprisal for the women who had rejected his sexual advances.  He was undoubtedly a nutter, but by his own admission the massacre was due to his hatred of women, and Moss made the point that it could therefore be labelled as a hate crime.  She then read a quote from the bible, in order to point out that this type of thinking has quite a lengthy history.   She went on to make the point that just because this one nutter is gone doesn't negate the fact that violence against women is prevalent in our society and the fact that it was a one-off event shouldn't prevent us from acknowledging that it was a "hate crime" and this type of attitude contributes to the very high levels of domestic violence, rape and sexual assaults reported daily in our cities.
> 
> Clearly, Moss is focused on promoting discussion about violence against women, and was making a link between this mentally ill young man who said "I cannot kill every woman on earth, but I can deliver a devastating blow that will shake all of them to the core of their wicked hearts".   To lay the blame for this shooting massacre on "misogynistic views" is accurate, as the gunman himself was quite clear on this point.  So far as the church is concerned, the quote is accurate, and I've long felt the bible, the catholic church and indeed most religions have a deeply misogynistic past and are overdue for change.
> 
> On the whole, I enjoyed this episode - it was nice not to have the usual bunch of pollies talking over the top of each other.  I especially enjoyed Tara Moss - she strikes me as an intelligent, articulate woman who is on a mission to promote discussion of issues important to a lot of women.  And to promote her book, naturally




Thanks for the summary Dock caught two minute's of it while Tara Moss was speaking what an intelligent and articulate women she is nice target for anyone who can not get pass three worded slogan's.


----------



## Duckman#72 (27 May 2014)

DocK said:


> Tara Moss - she strikes me as an intelligent, articulate woman who is on a mission to promote discussion of issues important to a lot of women.  And to promote her book, naturally




 No arguments from me Dock. She is intelligent and articulate and was certainly on a mission to promote her book. 

My annoyance was the platform she was supplied by the ABC. She was clearly thrown a Dorothy Dixer from the floor and didn't she run with it!! The question was..."is this attack symbolic and representative of a misogynistic society?" This question was even repeated by Tony Jones. 

Tara spent the majority of her time discussing the high levels of domestic violence and sexual abuse against women in a vain attempt to link back to the question. This was neither a domestic violence issue nor were any of the women sexually abused. Conveniently neither Tara nor any other of the panel mentioned that the gunman attacked and killed males as well. 

At least Jean Kittson had the common sense to back away from Tara's position at a great rate of knots. She made the most sense of all by basically saying....."While I respect and support your position on raising awareness and supporting victims of domestic violence, in this case maybe we are just dealing with a very mentally ill individual".

It was an ABC stitch up from the start. There could have been a much more interesting and engaging debate if the questioner had of asked......"is this attack symbolic and representative of.......
...........the decline of the USA society?
...........the problem surrounding the availability of guns in the USA?
...........the lack of assistance provided to parents with mentally unstable children?
...........where Australia is headed?

But unfortunately that is not on the ABC agenda.

Duckman


----------



## Duckman#72 (27 May 2014)

IFocus said:


> Thanks for the summary Dock caught two minute's of it while Tara Moss was speaking what an intelligent and articulate women she is nice target for anyone who can not get pass three worded slogan's.




Please Use Fullstops :


----------



## Julia (27 May 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> No arguments from me Dock. She is intelligent and articulate and was certainly on a mission to promote her book.
> 
> My annoyance was the platform she was supplied by the ABC. She was clearly thrown a Dorothy Dixer from the floor and didn't she run with it!! The question was..."is this attack symbolic and representative of a misogynistic society?" This question was even repeated by Tony Jones.
> 
> ...



+1, and then some.


----------



## DocK (28 May 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> No arguments from me Dock. She is intelligent and articulate and was certainly on a mission to promote her book.
> 
> My annoyance was the platform she was supplied by the ABC. She was clearly thrown a Dorothy Dixer from the floor and didn't she run with it!! The question was..."is this attack symbolic and representative of a misogynistic society?" This question was even repeated by Tony Jones.
> 
> ...




OK, I think I understand where you're coming from now - it seems you're not upset/annoyed with what Tara Moss said, so much as the question she was posed from the audience member?  I guess I just expected that as it was a show filmed during, or even at, the Sydney Writer's Festival that the questions would have been selected to tie in with the various panelists recent works.  Jean Kitson was clearly also on the panel to promote her recent book about menopause, and was lobbed a question from the audience that was very obviously also preselected for that purpose.  Likewise, Richard Flanagan was asked about leadership qualities based on the main character in his recent (most excellent) book.  I guess these questions could also be classed as "an ABC stitch-up" if one really expected the questions selected were completely random and not vetted, but with this particular panel I would have expected nothing else.  While I agree that a discussion about gun control laws in the USA (for example) would have been very interesting, I don't know that any of the panelists were particularly qualified or knowledgeable in that area, and I'd rather hear them speak to subjects they're conversant with.  

I'm assuming you think a discussion of misogynistic views and/or violence against women fits the ABC agenda?  That may be so, but I don't have a problem with that.  I don't mind them discussing menopause either, but maybe that's symptomatic of our differing personal circumstances.    On the whole, I thing Tony Jones was actually not showing his political bias for once, which was quite refreshing.


----------



## Julia (28 May 2014)

DocK said:


> On the whole, I thing Tony Jones was actually not showing his political bias for once, which was quite refreshing.



Perhaps because he was amongst friends?   There are few more Left leaning gatherings than Writers' Festivals.
Of course that's not to say there is not some really good content, much of which I've enjoyed on RN.

I don't know Tim Storrier, but have frequently heard all the others deriding government policies with some vehemence.


----------



## bellenuit (28 May 2014)

DocK said:


> On the whole, I thing Tony Jones was actually not showing his political bias for once, which was quite refreshing.




Being overseas and not having seen the show, DocK, I'm probably in no position to comment, but according to Duckman this was the question asked....

_ The question was..."is this attack symbolic and representative of a misogynistic society?" This question was even repeated by Tony Jones_

Perhaps Jones thought that any discussion of misogyny would invariably lead to the left dragging Abbott in to the discussion.


----------



## DocK (28 May 2014)

Julia said:


> Perhaps because he was amongst friends?   There are few more Left leaning gatherings than Writers' Festivals.
> Of course that's not to say there is not some really good content, much of which I've enjoyed on RN.
> 
> I don't know Tim Storrier, but have frequently heard all the others deriding government policies with some vehemence.




Tim Storrier was awful, in my opinion.  But I thought Kitson sounded pro-budget, at least on the uni fee question.  What did you think of her reply to the question on deregulation of university funding?  Agree that "artistic types" have long been believed to be left-leaning, but I found even Thomas Keneally had something good to say about a Liberal PM, albeit quite some years in the past.


----------



## DocK (28 May 2014)

bellenuit said:


> Being overseas and not having seen the show, DocK, I'm probably in no position to comment, but according to Duckman this was the question asked....
> 
> _ The question was..."is this attack symbolic and representative of a misogynistic society?" This question was even repeated by Tony Jones_
> 
> Perhaps Jones thought that any discussion of misogyny would invariably lead to the left dragging Abbott in to the discussion.




Perhaps, although as the event took place in the USA that might be too long a bow to draw, even for Tony.  In any event, if that was his wish the panelists refrained from taking the bait on this occasion.


----------



## Duckman#72 (28 May 2014)

DocK said:


> I don't know that any of the panelists were particularly qualified or knowledgeable in that area, and I'd rather hear them speak to subjects they're conversant with.




Every week Q&A have a wide ranging panel (albeit mainly from the left), who are asked questions on variety of topics, and there is an expectation that these will be answered. These questions vary from social, political, cultural and even sporting. My criticism is that quite often a lot of latitude is given to those speakers and topics where the ABC is sympathetic to the cause. David Marr for example is allowed to interject, intimidate, and mock others far more than most. However Tony Jones is very quick to interject with other panellists when he feels the argument is going in the "wrong" direction.   

In this case, the question, by attempting to connect a current world event with Tara's field of expertise, was in my opinion clumsy at best and ABC agenda-driven at worst.

If Q&A want to discuss menopause, domestic violence, sexual abuse.....great.....but be open and upfront. To redefine the boundaries of a debate that should be about gun control, mental health, social media, disconnected youth and suicide and move it towards misogyny is pandering to special interest groups and the ABC agenda. To say that these weren't areas of Tara's expertise is offensive to Moss. We've already established in earlier posts that she is an intelligent and articulate woman. Q&A seems to be a quasi "Mastermind" where you come in to discuss "special topics"......however, there is a catch.... they have to be "special topics" the ABC approve of. 

If Q&A want to discuss misogyny - let's have a debate on what the term means. Far too often it is used as a replacement for bias, sexist and inequality. Not even the crazed gunman in the USA was committed to the cause....he killed and attacked men and women alike!    

Duckman


----------



## DocK (28 May 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> Every week Q&A have a wide ranging panel (albeit mainly from the left), who are asked questions on variety of topics, and there is an expectation that these will be answered. These questions vary from social, political, cultural and even sporting. My criticism is that quite often a lot of latitude is given to those speakers and topics where the ABC is sympathetic to the cause. David Marr for example is allowed to interject, intimidate, and mock other far more than most. However Tony Jones is very quick to interject with other panellists when he feels the argument is going in the "wrong" direction.
> 
> In this case, the question, by attempting to connect a current world event with Tara's field of expertise, was in my opinion clumsy at best and ABC agenda-driven at worst.
> 
> ...





Duckman, I think we're talking at cross-purposes here.  I thought we were having a discussion about this one particular show, not the ABC's or Tony Jones agenda in general - a subject upon which we probably agree.  I have no problem with this week's show, so shall agree to disagree with you on this occasion.  I have no wish to be drawn into a lengthy debate on misogyny in general, or the most recent massacre in the USA.


----------



## SirRumpole (28 May 2014)

> Where in our society do we really see true forms of "misogyny?" That is....a hatred of women.




Adrian Bayley, Simon Gittany, Baker & Crump, Murphy et al, and many others of the same ilk, all rapists and murderers of women.

People don't usually kill someone they respect, and most of these people are not in mental asylums, they are in gaols. Did they hate the people they killed ? Don't most murderers ?

To deprecate this subject as a mere figment of the Left's imagination is to ignore the hell that all those who have been murdered or suffer domestic violence have been through. 

Obviously it's over reach to say society itself is misogynistic, but its a more serious problem than some choose to admit.


----------



## Calliope (28 May 2014)

SirRumpole said:


> Obviously it's over reach to say society itself is misogynistic, but its a more serious problem than some choose to admit.




I guess it's in our genes.


----------



## Julia (28 May 2014)

Duckman#72 said:


> Every week Q&A have a wide ranging panel (albeit mainly from the left), who are asked questions on variety of topics, and there is an expectation that these will be answered. These questions vary from social, political, cultural and even sporting. My criticism is that quite often a lot of latitude is given to those speakers and topics where the ABC is sympathetic to the cause. David Marr for example is allowed to interject, intimidate, and mock others far more than most. However Tony Jones is very quick to interject with other panellists when he feels the argument is going in the "wrong" direction.
> 
> In this case, the question, by attempting to connect a current world event with Tara's field of expertise, was in my opinion clumsy at best and ABC agenda-driven at worst.
> 
> ...



+1 again.



DocK said:


> Tim Storrier was awful, in my opinion.  But I thought Kitson sounded pro-budget, at least on the uni fee question.  What did you think of her reply to the question on deregulation of university funding?  Agree that "artistic types" have long been believed to be left-leaning, but I found even Thomas Keneally had something good to say about a Liberal PM, albeit quite some years in the past.



I haven't watched the whole program yet and am not sure that I actually want to.  I turned it on when Tara Moss was speaking.  Yes, of course she is articulate, but she is also a master (mistress?) of self promotion.  Perhaps because I have Radio National on a good deal, I'm a bit sick of her.  Ditto Keneally who is one of Radio National's favourite guests, trotted out for his opinion on pretty much everything.

Agree strongly with Duckman that Jones and the ABC in general will find a way to weasel their way via the most apparently eclectic discussions to their own agenda and will choose their guests accordingly.


----------



## Tink (29 May 2014)

Agree, Duckman and Julia.

I could see Tony Jones pushing his own barrow on this program, and it gets frustrating to watch, when he cuts people mid sentence when its not heading in his direction. 

Let people talk.........


----------



## sptrawler (29 May 2014)

Tink said:


> Agree, Duckman and Julia.
> 
> I could see Tony Jones pushing his own barrow on this program, and it gets frustrating to watch, when he cuts people mid sentence when its not heading in his direction.
> 
> Let people talk.........





+1 Tinks, the same goes for all these sort of shows, I feel like screaming at the t.v "shut up and let them finish, they're smarter than you "

For some reason, all these media people think everyone is interested in what they have to say, were not.


----------



## Calliope (29 May 2014)

Which ABC program would you prefer to lose to budget cuts... Peppa Pig or Q&A?

Vote result;

Peppa Pig   12.51%

Q&A           87.49%

Total Votes 12,413

http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/enter...-on-abc-in-doubt/story-fni0cc2b-1226934648643


----------



## sptrawler (29 May 2014)

Calliope said:


> Which ABC program would you prefer to lose to budget cuts... Peppa Pig or Q&A?
> 
> Vote result;
> 
> ...




That is classic Calliope, 

Apparently Shaun the Sheep is safe, so the Labor Party policy development team can rest easy.lol


----------



## Logique (3 June 2014)

That septic theoretical physicist shouting climate 'denier' on last night's panel, he needs to be on the first plane back home.

What a dill.


----------



## dutchie (3 June 2014)

Logique said:


> That septic theoretical physicist shouting climate 'denier' on last night's panel, he needs to be on the first plane back home.
> 
> What a dill.




But he thought he was pretty clever.


----------



## noco (3 June 2014)

dutchie said:


> But he thought he was pretty clever.




He is a comedian.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 February 2016)

The Lefty lynch mob is baaacck !!!

Q&A returns at 9:30 pm ABC1.

I'm sure you all will be watching.


----------



## noco (1 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The Lefty lynch mob is baaacck !!!
> 
> Q&A returns at 9:30 pm ABC1.
> 
> I'm sure you all will be watching.




It would want to improve a hell of lot from last year.....No more stacking the panel and audience Fabian style.


----------



## Tisme (1 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> The Lefty lynch mob is baaacck !!!
> 
> Q&A returns at 9:30 pm ABC1.
> 
> I'm sure you all will be watching.




Hopefully Abbott's attempt to make it a political puppet of the LNP has failed. 

My attitude is that the LNP needs to start looking for clever people who can talk at the level expected of Q&A.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 February 2016)

Tisme said:


> Hopefully Abbott's attempt to make it a political puppet of the LNP has failed.
> 
> My attitude is that the LNP needs to start looking for clever people who can talk at the level expected of Q&A.




You don't think Christopher Pyne is up to it then ?


----------



## Tisme (1 February 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You don't think Christopher Pyne is up to it then ?




I think the LNP is by and large Passion Pop trying to make out they are Dom Perignon White Gold.


----------



## SirRumpole (1 February 2016)

Tisme said:


> I think the LNP is by and large Passion Pop trying to make out they are Dom Perignon White Gold.




More like Zooper Doopers. 

Warren Truss would need at least 10 times his current mental capacity to even understand the questions, let alone answer them.


----------



## Tisme (2 February 2016)

The Stan Grant hour as it turned out.

http://ia.anu.edu.au/biography/grant-stan-17827

I'm still bewildered how a pinafore bloke like David Morrison ran the army


----------



## basilio (2 February 2016)

Tisme said:


> The Stan Grant hour as it turned out.
> 
> http://ia.anu.edu.au/biography/grant-stan-17827
> 
> I'm still bewildered how a pinafore bloke like David Morrison ran the army




Yeah. It's interesting how typecasting can persuade us that small innocuous looking people don't/can't have the strength required for the really important jobs.

Look at Napoleon for example..


----------



## SirRumpole (2 February 2016)

basilio said:


> Yeah. It's interesting how typecasting can persuade us that small innocuous looking people don't/can't have the strength required for the really important jobs.
> 
> Look at Napoleon for example..




Or Bill Shorten ?


----------



## Tisme (2 May 2016)

What's the big idea of putting together a majority panel of people for democracy and good govt? I thought I was a lone ranger of ethical politics. Ms Goward should not be there.


----------



## noco (2 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> What's the big idea of putting together a majority panel of people for democracy and good govt? I thought I was a lone ranger of ethical politics. Ms Goward should not be there.




Because Ms. Goward believes in democracy where as others believe in a government of central control and that is not democracy....One thing for sure, the CFMEU do not believe in democracy...It their way or the high way....Just ask Barnacle Bill.

*In Bill Shorten’s book released today, he confesses if he was elected as Prime Minister he would lead Australia like a union, despite all the dodgy deals that have been exposed.*

Take you pick.


----------



## luutzu (2 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> What's the big idea of putting together a majority panel of people for democracy and good govt? I thought I was a lone ranger of ethical politics. Ms Goward should not be there.




Can't me just me that the audience's questions are generally more intelligent than the answers they got.

I like how Pru answered that question about Australian politicians nowadays seem to not take a stance for the good of the public but merely take the safest way to get re-elected.

Why of course politicians will stick by their principle and do right by the people or else quit. Trust us. 

---

Then came LateLine... I thought Michael Chaney was smart all these years, for some reason.

Spewing the same neo-con, free market bs about deregulating uni fee and how a cap on fee is  bad idea as it'll mean the greedy uni will go to the cap... whereas if you don't cap the fees, they and free market will force them to decide on their own to not go there ?? 

Yes, uni chancellors can't wink at each other... they would go all out at each other to keep the fees down - for the chilren, of course.


Then some idiot with a "think tank" I guess you'll call it. Lower corporate tax is not a cost to the gov't - it'll actually make more money for us. Wow... not sure why gov't want to tax us so high if lowering it would make them more money; or why corporations aren't fighting tax cuts - yes, lower rate mean more profit and innovation mean more sales mean more tax [??]


I thought it'd be a good thing to be 5 years behind the yanks and poms... could learn to not follow their failed policies. Guess not.


----------



## luutzu (2 May 2016)

noco said:


> Because Ms. Goward believes in democracy where as others believe in a government of central control and that is not democracy....One thing for sure, the CFMEU do not believe in democracy...It their way or the high way....Just ask Barnacle Bill.
> 
> *In Bill Shorten’s book released today, he confesses if he was elected as Prime Minister he would lead Australia like a union, despite all the dodgy deals that have been exposed.*
> 
> Take you pick.




From what I heard, don't think she does noco.

What with having a representative gov't with, I guess know-it-all and honest politicians will work great for us... Trust them, she said.


----------



## sptrawler (2 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Can't me just me that the audience's questions are generally more intelligent than the answers they got.
> 
> I like how Pru answered that question about Australian politicians nowadays seem to not take a stance for the good of the public but merely take the safest way to get re-elected.
> 
> ...




I have thought on this corporate tax cuts to promote jobs and growth a bit, and I think like you it is a race to the bottom.

We need corporate investment, but not at any cost, driving down company tax rates to increase income tax receipts, will accelerate the drop in living standards.IMO


----------



## Tisme (3 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> From what I heard, don't think she does noco.
> 
> What with having a representative gov't with, I guess know-it-all and honest politicians will work great for us... Trust them, she said.




I'm always suspicious of people who speak with a received accent and show unemotive determination to own a discussion.

Of course not having an affair with a prime minister while being married to Howard's mate David Barnett and consequent "Lettergate" hasn't hurt Pru's legitimacy as a people choice candidate.  The public service couldn't get enough of that chestnut.


Her famous daughter changed her name to reflect her Grandma's Jewish roots and has been on a constant journey to find the meaning of life that was obviously omitted from her early childhood development.......going by her earlier facebook rants I suspect she never got past puberty blues.


----------



## luutzu (3 May 2016)

sptrawler said:


> I have thought on this corporate tax cuts to promote jobs and growth a bit, and I think like you it is a race to the bottom.
> 
> We need corporate investment, but not at any cost, driving down company tax rates to increase income tax receipts, will accelerate the drop in living standards.IMO




Yea. These "global competitiveness" nonsense is just a race to the bottom.

Income tax cuts rarely encourage more investment. It's demand from consumers that will just automate corporate's increase in investment to meet it.

---

Was watching The Young Turk news on YouTube and Cenk (Uighurs) was quoting a research into American politics.

the paper found that since 1980 to round about now, what the 99% want or does not want have ZERO impact on policies. Nothing. Laws and deals are made "for them" whether they like it or not.

But if you're at the top and you don't like certain policies - it will NOT get implemented. That is, if you're rich and you don't like certain policies, it just will not pass.

If the rich want certain law passed? some 66% chance it will get passed.

Don't think Australia is different - we're just slower.


----------



## luutzu (3 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> I'm always suspicious of people who speak with a received accent and show unemotive determination to own a discussion.
> 
> Of course not having an affair with a prime minister while being married to Howard's mate David Barnett and consequent "Lettergate" hasn't hurt Pru's legitimacy as a people choice candidate.  The public service couldn't get enough of that chestnut.
> 
> ...




Australian politics, not as boring as it seem.


----------



## noco (12 May 2016)

Q and A have been well and truly exposed relating to last Monday night's hero Duncan Storrar.

Make sure you read the hundreds of comments.

What an embarrassment of that twit Tony Jones....He is so far left he is about to fall off his perch IMHO. 


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...o/news-story/ecf8f9d4eebbd54f9899697053fb445b

*The ABC presented him as a “new national hero” and a low-paid Aussie battler, but Duncan *Storrar’s son, Aztec Major, paints a very different picture of his *father.

Mr Major, 20, said he couldn’t believe it when he saw people *donating tens of thousands of dollars to a Go Fund Me page set up for Mr Storrar, who captured the nation’s attention when he appeared on the ABC’s Q&A on Monday, saying he didn’t make enough money to take his kids to the pictures.

“He doesn’t deserve it,” said Mr Major, who uses his mother’s surname. “He’s used drugs. He’s not the person he’s making himself out to be.”

Mr Major said he moved in with his father when he was 17 *because “I guess I wanted to get to know him but it was while I was living with him, he was using drugs, and I got addicted with him and that was the start of my downward *spiral”. He said it took all his courage to break free of his father “and I’ve been clean since November 2014”.*


----------



## noco (13 May 2016)

This little Aussie battler....this druggie....this jail bird?

IMHO he was selected by Labor's influence on ABC with precise purpose to embarrass the Liberal Party and Kelly O"Dwyer......It back fired on them badly....Shame on Tony Jones and the Labor Party who will stop at nothing gain Labor votes......Every time one of the lefties or the Greenie spoke there was always a loud roar and applause from the audience...The ABC's record is appalling when they indicate the % of Labor and Liberal supporters in the audience....It is more like 90% Labor and 10% Liberal......The ABC is as crocked as my dislocated little finger on my left hand. 

Time to bring the ABC into line with their charter or otherwise privatize the ABC. 

https://au.news.yahoo.com/a/31583299/fundraising-halted-for-aussie-battler-as-public-raise-60-000/

*But after News Corp published revelations that Mr Storrar had been in prison on three separate occasions, the organisers asked for people to stop donating.*


----------



## Ves (13 May 2016)

Noco,  despite his character defects, lack of education and criminal record the bloke did raise a valid point.

The marginal utility of money is a real thing. Attacking him personally doesn't make it go away.


----------



## luutzu (13 May 2016)

noco said:


> This little Aussie battler....this druggie....this jail bird?
> 
> IMHO he was selected by Labor's influence on ABC with precise purpose to embarrass the Liberal Party and Kelly O"Dwyer......It back fired on them badly....Shame on Tony Jones and the Labor Party who will stop at nothing gain Labor votes......Every time one of the lefties or the Greenie spoke there was always a loud roar and applause from the audience...The ABC's record is appalling when they indicate the % of Labor and Liberal supporters in the audience....It is more like 90% Labor and 10% Liberal......The ABC is as crocked as my dislocated little finger on my left hand.
> 
> ...




This is what killing the messenger is in modern times ey.

btw, if a person had served their time in prison... doesn't it mean it's time for them to move on - having serve their time for their crime and what not?

Or are we back in the good old days when prison is a mark for life... I guess the circle doesn't spin itself.


----------



## noco (13 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> This is what killing the messenger is in modern times ey.
> 
> btw, if a person had served their time in prison... doesn't it mean it's time for them to move on - having serve their time for their crime and what not?
> 
> Or are we back in the good old days when prison is a mark for life... I guess the circle doesn't spin itself.




Irrespective of this guy's back ground it was nevertheless a Labor Party set up to smear the Liberal Party...Make no mistake about that.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2016)

noco said:


> Irrespective of this guy's back ground it was nevertheless a Labor Party set up to smear the Liberal Party...Make no mistake about that.




It would only "smear" the Liberal Party if O'Dwyer could not answer the question properly (which she didn't imo).

 Do you expect everyone to ask Dorothy Dixers like in Parliament ?

Dream on noco.


----------



## Junior (13 May 2016)

Kelly did a shocking job of addressing the guy's question.  

It wasn't that hard.  Just harp on about bracket creep for a minute and then highlight which part of the budget specifically assists someone in Duncan's situation.


----------



## Tisme (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It would only "smear" the Liberal Party if O'Dwyer could not answer the question properly (which she didn't imo).
> 
> Do you expect everyone to ask Dorothy Dixers like in Parliament ?
> 
> Dream on noco.





She's the gaffer who recently stated Labor's policy would drive up house prices, contrary to the Libs plank that the reverse would happen....... she just makes up s4it and keeps talking it up until everyone gives up and wanders off.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2016)

Tisme said:


> She's the gaffer who recently stated Labor's policy would drive up house prices, contrary to the Libs plank that the reverse would happen....... she just makes up s4it and keeps talking it up until everyone gives up and wanders off.




Yes same as Michele Cash, talks a lot of hot air and eventually forgets what the question was. 

Contrast with Julie Bishop who I reckon gives some consistently classy performances. A minimum of bs and stays on the point. She is the Libs top performer imo.


----------



## noco (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> It would only "smear" the Liberal Party if O'Dwyer could not answer the question properly (which she didn't imo).
> 
> Do you expect everyone to ask Dorothy Dixers like in Parliament ?
> 
> Dream on noco.




The bloody lefties on the panel were no better...It was nothing more than a 'GOTCHA" set up by that crumby Labor Party.

That Galah also paid more on the hidden sales tax than he did on the GST.


----------



## luutzu (13 May 2016)

noco said:


> The bloody lefties on the panel were no better...It was nothing more than a 'GOTCHA" set up by that crumby Labor Party.
> 
> That Galah also paid more on the hidden sales tax than he did on the GST.




Just because the question gotcha the politician doesn't mean it's a set up.

Just because the guy doesn't earn enough to pay income tax doesn't mean he's cheating the tax system. He could be just as honest and fair dinkum as those rare millionaires paying no income tax too.

How come you always tend to beat up the little guys noco? Is it the Murdoch papers or just the weather.


----------



## noco (13 May 2016)

luutzu said:


> Just because the question gotcha the politician doesn't mean it's a set up.
> 
> Just because the guy doesn't earn enough to pay income tax doesn't mean he's cheating the tax system. He could be just as honest and fair dinkum as those rare millionaires paying no income tax too.
> 
> *How come you always tend to beat up the little guys noco?* Is it the Murdoch papers or just the weather.




You obviously are very naive as to how the Labor Party operates with regards to the ABC.

Where did you get the idea that I  always tend to beat up the little guy?...Please quote where I have done so in the past.


----------



## SirRumpole (13 May 2016)

noco said:


> You obviously are very naive as to how the Labor Party operates with regards to the ABC.
> 
> Where did you get the idea that I  always tend to beat up the little guy?...Please quote where I have done so in the past.




You beat up on luu and me all the time !


----------



## luutzu (13 May 2016)

noco said:


> You obviously are very naive as to how the Labor Party operates with regards to the ABC.
> 
> Where did you get the idea that I  always tend to beat up the little guy?...Please quote where I have done so in the past.




I have some tiny ideas of how Re'al Politiks are played. But whether or not the guy was a set up does not mean his questions and concerns are not legitimate.

It's the kind of questions we all should ask of our politicians: why is it that all you a holes are fighting for us and all your policies are supposed to make us little and big guys better off - but somehow one end of town does better while the other are always worst off?

And this accidental annual beggaring of the poor has been so consistent it's almost as though it's done on purpose.

For instance, the latest research on the Budget concludes that the poorest Australian families are, again, going to be worst off; That negative gearing is costing an average Australian $310 a year.

Why?

Does the messenger have to be all clean to make such questions legitimate?

btw, doesn't the fact that Storrar has a criminal past indicate that maybe Labor's henchmen didn't picked him to set up the Liberals?

I'm no poltical operative but I'd picked a pretty Causian with freckles, blue eyes, fair skin with pretty smiles, perfect teeth and two adorable toddlers with a retired Vet for a husband and a dingo for a pet to set up that kind of "gotcha" stuff.

----

"Illegals"; Muslims refugees; Mother Nature; Unions...

Don't take that as personal attacks. Just it's hard to see how you could be fighting for a better Australia with blanketed attacks on all those, and then some.

There are good and bad in everything... maybe more productive to attack the bad whereever it is. And it doesn't always reside in Labor or Greens or Muslims. Sometimes it's the well dressed, clean looking people with good manners that take your beloved country to heck - unintentionally, of course.


----------



## luutzu (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You beat up on luu and me all the time !




yea!

And my therapist told me I don't have to put up with it anymore.


----------



## noco (13 May 2016)

SirRumpole said:


> You beat up on luu and me all the time !




Hmmmm....I always thought you big guys.

Oh dear .....so you don't beat me up at all.

I can give you back all you give to me pal.

Best you give back that SIR BS as lefties don't believe in knighthoods..

I don't beat up luu..he is a thorough gentleman.


----------



## luutzu (14 May 2016)

noco said:


> Hmmmm....I always thought you big guys.
> 
> Oh dear .....so you don't beat me up at all.
> 
> ...




The old divide and conquer there noco?


----------



## SirRumpole (14 February 2017)

I agree with Jacquie Lambie on banning Sharia Law.

Pity there couldn't be a rational discussion on this instead of a shouting match. Sharia law says that a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man. 

That alone should be grounds for barring Sharia Law here. It's an abrogation of a woman's fundamental rights to marry who she wants.


----------



## MrBurns (14 February 2017)

I agree just another example of our gutless politicians failing us.


----------



## Tisme (14 February 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I agree with Jacquie Lambie on banning Sharia Law.
> 
> Pity there couldn't be a rational discussion on this instead of a shouting match. Sharia law says that a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man.
> 
> That alone should be grounds for barring Sharia Law here. It's an abrogation of a woman's fundamental rights to marry who she wants.




Yes that girl who argued the toss with Jacquie  parades her family's legacy of Islam as something shiny and bright: from a sh1thole in Africa where freedom of religion is prohibited and Christians are persecuted, their graves pillaged, churches banned.


----------



## Logique (14 February 2017)

And predictably, the Fairfax press spins it against Jacqui Lambie. 

Sharia Law? Genital mutilation of women, cutting off of hands and flinging of gays off tall buildings happens under Sharia Law.


----------



## Wysiwyg (14 February 2017)

I think Yassmin is what she wants Islam to be so don't dis. her faith or expect a good bitch slap. I wonder what her thoughts are on Muslim Anjem Chaudery from England. Maybe they read a different book.


----------



## Tisme (16 February 2017)

Seems that Yassmin Abdel-Magied is a little miffed at being bested by Jackie Lambie on QANDA last Monday. 

Of course every week some panelist is offended with hurt feelings because someone questioned their infallibility. 

I don't know why she would be upset at some wanting to deport someone practising unlawful acts?

And who woodathought that wearing an African Islamic outfit would single her out when she's" ... in the public space deeply, desperately avoiding being the Muslim girl," 

Having said that, *if actually true, death and harm threats by the public should result in jail time and deportation.*

http://www.smh.com.au/act-news/yass...-comments-the-last-straw-20170215-gudae2.html


----------



## SirRumpole (16 February 2017)

People who say Islam is a feminist faith must be brainwashed and their views need to be taken with a large dose of salt.

No one deserves death threats though and I hope the people responsible are caught and punished.

PS There is already a Q&A thread.


----------



## Wysiwyg (16 February 2017)

Isn't this how the Islamic struggle goes. Rejection of the religion is the cause of their anger. Jackie is not too subtle though.


----------



## Tisme (16 February 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> PS There is already a Q&A thread.




 Couldn't find it on search dammit


----------



## noco (16 February 2017)

Tisme said:


> Couldn't find it on search dammit




Look for QandA is political


----------



## pixel (17 February 2017)

noco said:


> Look for QandA is political



qanda is enough, but you need to check the boxes like below:





If you leave one of the lower boxes ticked (by default one is on) you probably miss it. 
Works for all searches.


----------



## Tisme (17 February 2017)

pixel said:


> qanda is enough, but you need to check the boxes like below:
> View attachment 69977
> 
> If you leave one of the lower boxes ticked (by default one is on) you probably miss it.
> Works for all searches.




Yeah I must have made a whoopsie. The thing is that when you start a thread, the dialogue usually throws up similar titles, but there was none on this occasion.


----------



## Tisme (21 February 2017)

What a pair of poisonous sociopathic characters are Brandis and Akerman. Even when they are caught out bare faced lying they continue on as if it is of no consequence. Both seem to take great pleasure in baiting anyone ALP and take no responsibility for their own lies.

Panel last night was stacked with people I disagree with : the two ar5holes, Tanya and while Julian Burnside is very reminiscent of the atypical cultured man of a similar age in the 1960's he was rather irritatingly docile.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 February 2017)

Brandis is an idiot as has been proved many times.

I don't know what qualifications Ackerman has to present an informed opinion on anything, he's just another Bolt who likes listening to his own bigotted opinions.

"Just contact Centrelink" says George, totally ignoring reports by staff that they have been taken out of the loop when it comes to handling complaints. Talk about living in an ivory tower.


----------



## PZ99 (21 February 2017)

It was poor quality. I don't normally watch Q/A but it appears they spent too much time on the first question and rushed their way through the rest of the episode.


----------



## Tisme (21 February 2017)

PZ99 said:


> It was poor quality. I don't normally watch Q/A but it appears they spent too much time on the first question and rushed their way through the rest of the episode.




I'm not sure if the likes of Brandis and Akerman are asked on the show for anything but their circus appeal. Of course rusted on LNP voters would find it highly amusing watching their heroes bait foes, but for the questioing and thinking population it's a demonstration of how low down the ladder journalism and politiking can stoop.

Personally I think they should be excluded and a cardboard cutout  permanently ensconced that repeats "It's Labor Fault" when a button is pushed by an LNP fan in the audience. Coz nothing intelligent, accountable and responsible seems to leave the lips of the fleshy models.


----------



## PZ99 (21 February 2017)

So the most valuable content is the tweets from the public then? lol


----------



## Tisme (21 February 2017)

PZ99 said:


> So the most valuable content is the tweets from the public then? lol




I think it's good for my smirk muscles. 

Put anyone with a giant ego in front a camera and the holier than thou shines out more than the Lighthouse of Alexandria.


----------



## moXJO (21 February 2017)

God only knows why you watch that dribble. Brandis is basically darth vader to the left which is why they love having him on the show. He is click bait for the left. Seems they try to create an outrage every week.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 February 2017)

Tisme said:


> Julian Burnside is very reminiscent of the atypical cultured man of a similar age in the 1960's he was rather irritatingly docile.




He just didn't get enough opportunity to speak with being talked over by Brandis and Ackerman.


----------



## pixel (21 February 2017)

Tisme said:


> I'm not sure if the likes of Brandis and Akerman are asked on the show for anything but their circus appeal. Of course rusted on LNP voters would find it highly amusing watching their heroes bait foes, but for the questioing and thinking population it's a demonstration of how low down the ladder journalism and politiking can stoop.
> 
> Personally I think they should be excluded and a cardboard cutout  permanently ensconced that repeats "It's Labor Fault" when a button is pushed by an LNP fan in the audience. Coz nothing intelligent, accountable and responsible seems to leave the lips of the fleshy models.



After ten minutes, I questioned why I was still watching Brandis waffle and regurgitate his usual asinine platitudes. And the answer was, I'm not sufficiently masochistic to let two morons bore me. Even "Married at first sight" might have been a more intelligent diversion.
*Off-switch to the rescue!*


----------



## sptrawler (21 February 2017)

I just read the article on the ABC website.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-...ntrelink-call-solves-welfare-disputes/8287482

I don't know what everyone is getting out of shape about, my SMSF has on numerous occasions, received letters from the ATO which are computer generated and completely wrong.
I suppose lots of other tax payers have had them also, computer generates a letter because of faulty input by the ATO, the taxpayer gets the letter then has to ring and sort it out.

Shame the media didn't give us taxpayers the same coverage, they now give welfare recipients, is there any wonder the silent majority are fed up with the media and Government.


----------



## PZ99 (21 February 2017)

I think the problem is there's a lack of mediation and it gets worse with this policy of the recipient having to prove their innocence to centrelink who are virtually uncontactable. I wouldn't want to be in that catch22 situation especially if I don't have any money. Apparently someone committed suicide because of it.


----------



## SirRumpole (21 February 2017)

I think Centrelink should be prosecuted for making false claims if they send out wrong letters, after all recipients can be prosecuted if they make false claims.

Secondly whoever wrote the software (IBM again ?) should be sacked and sued for stuffing up the system.

It's a disgrace.


----------



## bellenuit (22 February 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I agree with Jacquie Lambie on banning Sharia Law.
> 
> Pity there couldn't be a rational discussion on this instead of a shouting match. Sharia law says that a Muslim woman can only marry a Muslim man.
> 
> That alone should be grounds for barring Sharia Law here. It's an abrogation of a woman's fundamental rights to marry who she wants.




I have noticed that when issues like Islam or Sharia are discussed on Q & A, they always ensure that the person expressing concerns about Islam is some ineloquent or right-wing zealot who has little factual knowledge to discuss either. They should have had someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali on as she is an ex-Muslim who has suffered the effects of Islamic misogyny (such as FMG). She also has to be protected whenever she gives a public airing as she is living under constant death threats. This is her take on the controversy surrounding that Q & A episode.

*How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia? – An Oped by Ayaan Hirsi Ali*

http://www.theahafoundation.org/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-sharia-an-oped-by-ayaan-hirsi-ali/


----------



## Tisme (22 February 2017)

bellenuit said:


> I have noticed that when issues like Islam or Sharia are discussed on Q & A, they always ensure that the person expressing concerns about Islam is some ineloquent or right-wing zealot who has little factual knowledge to discuss either. They should have had someone like Ayaan Hirsi Ali on as she is an ex-Muslim who has suffered the effects of Islamic misogyny (such as FMG). She also has to be protected whenever she gives a public airing as she is living under constant death threats. This is her take on the controversy surrounding that Q & A episode.
> 
> *How Do You Solve a Problem Like Sharia? – An Oped by Ayaan Hirsi Ali*
> 
> http://www.theahafoundation.org/how-do-you-solve-a-problem-like-sharia-an-oped-by-ayaan-hirsi-ali/




Perhaps have Waleed Ali on the same panel and ask him if he denounces. without reservation, the fatwas and apostasy that goes with Islam.


----------



## sptrawler (23 February 2017)

PZ99 said:


> I think the problem is there's a lack of mediation and it gets worse with this policy of the recipient having to prove their innocence to centrelink who are virtually uncontactable. I wouldn't want to be in that catch22 situation especially if I don't have any money. Apparently someone committed suicide because of it.




There is no mediation with the ATO also, if your SMSF can't prove your contribution and or claim wasn't legitimate, the computer will automatically send out the fine.
Then your SMSF may become non complying and another penalty will be sent to really hammer you.lol
But no one seems to care about that.lol


----------



## sptrawler (23 February 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> I think Centrelink should be prosecuted for making false claims if they send out wrong letters, after all recipients can be prosecuted if they make false claims.
> 
> Secondly whoever wrote the software (IBM again ?) should be sacked and sued for stuffing up the system.
> 
> It's a disgrace.




Shouldn't the same apply to the ATO?


----------



## SirRumpole (23 February 2017)

sptrawler said:


> Shouldn't the same apply to the ATO?




Yes.


----------



## PZ99 (23 February 2017)

Well, yes and no because the ATO are acting on a Govt policy so the same should really happen to the Govt, and it does sometimes. I take the point about SMSFs, although I would be far more stressed if I was a welfare recipient with nothing to my name other than $1.65 and an order from the Govt to settle an erroneous debt even before I get the chance to have it appealed and/or exonerated. All for the good of the country of course... that $50b tax cut for big business must be pretty important to be taking from the poor and giving to the rich. LOL


----------



## noco (23 February 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Well, yes and no because the ATO are acting on a Govt policy so the same should really happen to the Govt, and it does sometimes. I take the point about SMSFs, although I would be far more stressed if I was a welfare recipient with nothing to my name other than $1.65 and an order from the Govt to settle an erroneous debt even before I get the chance to have it appealed and/or exonerated. All for the good of the country of course... that $50b tax cut for big business must be pretty important to be taking from the poor and giving to the rich. LOL




Taking from the poor and giving to the rich?????.....I believe it is the other way around when you see how the poor workers of Chiquita and Clean Event were diddled out of $400,000,000 by Bill Shorten.......That is what you call taking from the poor and giving to the rich..

The $50 billion tax cuts is to encourage investment which both Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen said was good for us  in the National interest and now they have done 180 degree back flip on it.

Labor's RET of 50% renewables is going to cost $48 billion but they don't want to talk about that.

OFF TOPIC.


----------



## PZ99 (23 February 2017)

noco said:


> Taking from the poor and giving to the rich?????.....I believe it is the other way around when you see how the poor workers of Chiquita and Clean Event were diddled out of $400,000,000 by Bill Shorten.......That is what you call taking from the poor and giving to the rich..
> 
> The $50 billion tax cuts is to encourage investment which both Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen said was good for us  in the National interest and now they have done 180 degree back flip on it.
> 
> ...



If you feel sorry for the poor workers of Chiquita and Clean Event then prepare yourself to feel sorry for the thousands of workers who have just been screwed over today by the FWC thanks to Abbott's dirty campaign against penalty rates. What a creep that bloke is.

OFF TOPIC... except Q/A will probably be all over this in the next few weeks.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-23/weekend-penalty-rates-fair-work-commission-decision/8295758


----------



## luutzu (23 February 2017)

PZ99 said:


> Well, yes and no because the ATO are acting on a Govt policy so the same should really happen to the Govt, and it does sometimes. I take the point about SMSFs, although I would be far more stressed if I was a welfare recipient with nothing to my name other than $1.65 and an order from the Govt to settle an erroneous debt even before I get the chance to have it appealed and/or exonerated. All for the good of the country of course... that $50b tax cut for big business must be pretty important to be taking from the poor and giving to the rich. LOL




They're going to cut Medicare rebates on the high Specialist charges per visit. 

It'll be alright if you own a big business getting those tax cuts ey.

Though I'm still not sure why a gov't of the people not go to the Specialists and ask how in the world do they justify charging freaking $300+ an hour.

But I guess that would be big gov't interfering with private enterprise and monopolies. And we know how important it is for the working people that they have to be more disciplined and not get sick or see a Specialist and them fancy people.


----------



## luutzu (23 February 2017)

noco said:


> Taking from the poor and giving to the rich?????.....I believe it is the other way around when you see how the poor workers of Chiquita and Clean Event were diddled out of $400,000,000 by Bill Shorten.......That is what you call taking from the poor and giving to the rich..
> 
> The $50 billion tax cuts is to encourage investment which both Bill Shorten and Chris Bowen said was good for us  in the National interest and now they have done 180 degree back flip on it.
> 
> ...




Noco,

How about you giving me, ohhh... say $100,000. 

It'll be good for you. 

See, I'll spend it however I like, you pay for it... and it'll somehow eventually be return back to you many, many times over. 


Alright... that's too easy. 
How about you don't have to pay me anything... I'll just legally not have to pay $100,000 in taxes. Use that extra cash in my entrepreneurial pocket and promise to not go on holidays or upgrade my mercedes.

Cool with you?


----------



## noco (23 February 2017)

luutzu said:


> Noco,
> 
> How about you giving me, ohhh... say $100,000.
> 
> ...




I cannot see how your meandering rhetoric is  relevant to my post.....It makes no sense Luu.


----------



## luutzu (23 February 2017)

noco said:


> I cannot see how your meandering rhetoric is  relevant to my post.....It makes no sense Luu.




Let say the Treasury expects $1000B in its coffers during the year.

The gov't decides, in all its wisdom, to cut the need for businesses to pay $50B. This, we're told, is good for the economy blah blah; good for the aussie battlers, blah blah.

Then as we sit around waiting for that $50B "investment" we've given away, the budget is short $50B.

Who's going to pay for that?

The public will... 

Pay in having their entitlement and "free" stuff cut; some rebates in their healthcare costs cut; school, education, community park, roads not repair properly etc. etc.

There are a thousand and one ways a whole lot of creativity with no sense of fairness can make the plebs pay.

But that's the poor's problem. Who cares. Right?

Then for businesses... sitting with that $50B... they look around and see that there's a lack of demand for stuff. People are not buying or consuming much new stuff because, maybe they have to fork out more cash for what they used to have for a bit less.

Then intelligent business people thought, fark it, I'll take that $50B a year and go park it overseas on some island. 

This is how you ruin economies, bash the battlers, then blame it on them and Muslims.


----------



## Tisme (23 February 2017)

luutzu said:


> This is how you ruin economies, bash the battlers, then blame it on them and Muslims.





Muslims don't use banks and don't pay interest ... how is that good for bankers?


----------



## luutzu (23 February 2017)

Tisme said:


> Muslims don't use banks and don't pay interest ... how is that good for bankers?




The black market for financial services come at a very high price. Just ask HSBC.


----------



## noco (23 February 2017)

luutzu said:


> Let say the Treasury expects $1000B in its coffers during the year.
> 
> The gov't decides, in all its wisdom, to cut the need for businesses to pay $50B. This, we're told, is good for the economy blah blah; good for the aussie battlers, blah blah.
> 
> ...




Lets say Labor does not go ahead with their 50% RET ......There will be a saving of $48 billion.
You start off with $1000 billion then subtract $50 billion and you are left with $50 billion...I thought you would be left with $950 billion.

Luu, you ruin economies by spending big and borrowing big just like Labor did in 2007/2013....It then makes it easier to convert to Socialism......Do you get the picture?


----------



## luutzu (23 February 2017)

noco said:


> Lets say Labor does not go ahead with their 50% RET ......There will be a saving of $48 billion.
> You start off with $1000 billion then subtract $50 billion and you are left with $50 billion...I thought you would be left with $950 billion.
> 
> Luu, you ruin economies by spending big and borrowing big just like Labor did in 2007/2013....It then makes it easier to convert to Socialism......Do you get the picture?




No, the $50B that's supposed to go into the bank aren't there no more. So they'd have to make up the difference... i.e. balance the book. 

How?

Cut "wasteful" expenditure. Most of which just happen to be what the poor need.

Keep doing that and people soon enough start to burn stuff.

I guess that's why King Bibi came down under. Giving a mate's rate on them drones and security surveillance.

-----

National economies are not the same as familial house-keeping noco.

A sovereign country can print its own money. So it cost practically nothing to print whatever money we need to to repay debtors. 

I know I know, inflation and all that... but as long as we print it, spent it wisely it'll be recouped and we'd be right by the debtors.

But that's a last resort, say... A country can borrow, particularly at the current almost-zero real interest rate... then invest it in infrastructure, in education, health etc. etc.

These are investments that create jobs; jobs put money into the pockets of workers; who go out and spend on a house maybe; something nice for the spouse and spoil the kids a bit... that and pay taxes.

Collect tax properly, have nice new infrastructures; people are less stressed from financial and job insecurity... repay the debtors and it's a win-win.

But we can't have nice things like that because Abbott and his stupidity comes along.

Tighten the belts; live within our means... then get stuffed as the country could no longer afford anything and no new investments are made; no new jobs etc. etc.

Then off we go selling off national/state assets... selling to friends and masters, and a couple of Chinese friend of a friend.

That's call asset stripping.


----------



## noco (23 February 2017)

luutzu said:


> No, the $50B that's supposed to go into the bank aren't there no more. So they'd have to make up the difference... i.e. balance the book.
> 
> How?
> 
> ...



 But where does the $1000 billion fit in to your argument


----------



## luutzu (23 February 2017)

noco said:


> But where does the $1000 billion fit in to your argument




Ignore that number, it's just to illustrate but I didn't need it to make the point.

Point was, the $50B tax cuts aren't tax revenue the gov't does not need. They're needed - remember how we just can't afford anything?

Since we need every dollar we can get; since that $50B were given away... how will the gov't plug that hole?

They'll have to by either raising taxes (on the poor)... but that look so obvious. So what they'll often do is "cut" "freebies". It just so happen that those freebies are mainly given to the poor.

Say, concession for public transport. The school kids and the seniors who used to get cheaper rides. Get out of town ya free loaders. Get a job and pay up like the rest of the other poor people.


----------



## noco (23 February 2017)

luutzu said:


> Ignore that number, it's just to illustrate but I didn't need it to make the point.
> 
> Point was, the $50B tax cuts aren't tax revenue the gov't does not need. They're needed - remember how we just can't afford anything?
> 
> ...




So what about Bill Shorten's 50% RET target that will cost taxpayers $48 billion.......Is that OK with you?

Or do you think $48 billion would be better spent coal fired base load power stations which cheaper and more reliable than wind and solar.


----------



## luutzu (23 February 2017)

noco said:


> So what about Bill Shorten's 50% RET target that will cost taxpayers $48 billion.......Is that OK with you?
> 
> Or do you think $48 billion would be better spent coal fired base load power stations which cheaper and more reliable than wind and solar.




You saying the fossil-based power I've been using hasn't cost me anything? Or it hasn't risen by a lot above inflation. That renewables will costs me and other aussies more?

From memory, coal isn't cheaper... as to reliability, it will run out. How reliable would it be when the coals runs out?

The Sun won't be running away... and there's enough energy from the sun in one single day to power all energy need of the entire world for an entire year.

Yes, you heard that right. 

Imagine if we could capture even 1% of that free and clean energy each day... nope, tooo much trouble? It won't last?


----------



## noco (24 February 2017)

luutzu said:


> You saying the fossil-based power I've been using hasn't cost me anything? Or it hasn't risen by a lot above inflation. That renewables will costs me and other aussies more?
> 
> From memory, coal isn't cheaper... as to reliability, it will run out. How reliable would it be when the coals runs out?
> 
> ...





https://www.ruralweekly.com.au/news/coal-reserves-last-184-years/1423520/


----------



## luutzu (24 February 2017)

noco said:


> https://www.ruralweekly.com.au/news/coal-reserves-last-184-years/1423520/




There's this Climate Change thing right? Oh wait, you don't believe in that.


----------



## noco (24 February 2017)

luutzu said:


> There's this Climate Change thing right? Oh wait, you don't believe in that.




Yes of course I believe in Climate Change, it has been happening for millions of years.

I don't believe in this Global Warming crap which is an absolute scam set up by the UN to scare people.


----------



## SirRumpole (24 February 2017)

noco said:


> Yes of course I believe in Climate Change, it has been happening for millions of years.
> 
> I don't believe in this Global Warming crap which is an absolute scam set up by the UN to scare people.




That's right noco, just turn the aircon up a few degrees and everything will be ok.


----------



## Tisme (14 March 2017)

Bill Leahy came in for some criticism last night, the most disappointing two displays:

so called friend Ken Williams selling him down;
and 
aboriginal activists disregarding the avoidance rule of not naming nor disturbing the spirit of a dead person.


----------



## SirRumpole (14 March 2017)

Tisme said:


> aboriginal activists disregarding the avoidance rule of not naming nor disturbing the spirit of a dead person.




That only applies to dead aboriginals.

Bill Leak was telling the truth and some people didn't like it.

Tough.


----------



## Tisme (14 March 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> That only applies to dead aboriginals.
> 
> Bill Leak was telling the truth and some people didn't like it.
> 
> Tough.




 Discriminatory observance eh? How very appropriate.

And yes they should force the activists into a snap visit of outback Oz, even the suburban ghettos to see how rape, violence, destitution, alcohol, infant abuse, etc actually exists.

The sanitised version that the latte and coffee socialists  would believe is a fantasy


----------



## Tisme (17 March 2017)

ABC24 has Islamic Sue on again right now talking about phones in school. Nothing about grade 5s threatening beheadings so far.


----------



## SirRumpole (26 March 2017)

How Q&A decides who can ask questions:



http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-26/who-can-ask-a-question-on-q-and-a/8384792


----------



## Tisme (26 March 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> How Q&A decides who can ask questions:
> 
> 
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-26/who-can-ask-a-question-on-q-and-a/8384792





Never asked by questions .... inquiring minds need to know the answers asked by a xenophobic fascist I reckon


----------



## SirRumpole (26 March 2017)

Tisme said:


> Never asked by questions .... inquiring minds need to know the answers asked by a xenophobic fascist I reckon




My questions were always big picture nation building type stuff, that were passed over for trivial political crap like whether Tony Abbott would survive as PM until next week.


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2017)

Last night QANDA was given over to Bill Shorten.

In one segment Tony Jones directed the audience to a clip of school children (about 9 years old) sitting on a classroom floor holding up pro SSM placards and parroting a rote learned protest message about their right to vote in favour of SSM.

Bill was as pleased as a boy with two d!cks and Tony quite happily smug.

I'm wondering if there will be an inquiry into this patent abuse of children or because it fits the popular narrative it's all fine because it satisfies the grooming agenda?

It seems the nutjobs might be onto something:

http://www.wnd.com/2012/07/grooming-kids-in-a-gay-identity/


----------



## SirRumpole (22 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> Last night QANDA was given over to Bill Shorten.
> 
> In one segment Tony Jones directed the audience to a clip of school children (about 9 years old) sitting on a classroom floor holding up pro SSM placards and parroting a rote learned protest message about their right to vote in favour of SSM.
> 
> ...




This should be in the social engineering thread.


----------



## Tisme (22 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> This should be in the social engineering thread.




It was using children for the salacious agenda of the ABC/SSM/ALP cause. What kind of parent allows that to happen?!

You can watch here 11 minutes in "Children's Party"


http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s4708040.htm#


----------



## SirRumpole (22 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> What kind of parent allows that to happen?!




Brainwashed ones.

I wonder if anyone has told the kids they won't be able to afford a house when they grow up ?


----------



## wayneL (22 August 2017)

I am becoming more and more convinced that the greatest threat to us is not Islam, or Isis, or Russia,  or China,  or NK... 

It is us, our extreme left wing,  self loathing grievance industry,  the Greens, the left of both Liberal and Labor, the <cough> intelligencia, the virtue signallers, and the brainless tossers programmed by them and regurgitating their agenda without thought. 

Need we need more evidence than what appears on QandA


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 August 2017)

Tisme said:


> Last night QANDA was given over to Bill Shorten.



Bill was exaggerating his strength as a leader because Turnbull is presently seen as indecisive. Taxes and debt lecture from a historically spendthrift government., yeah sure. Sure is a tough gig swaying voters and pleasing everyone's money issues. Good to see the crowd occasionally laughed at his suggestions, seeing through the telling of what people want to hear.


----------



## Wysiwyg (22 August 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Brainwashed ones.



Well more like actors reading a script.

The comments at the bottom of the screen through the whole show is annoying. Inexperienced, nonsensical and many ill-informed tweets. If spur of the moment thoughts are controling these people's lives then it is going to be a rough road for them. For example this tweet referring to the scripted act on video is typical ...

"How COOL are these kids. If they're any measure, the future is in great hands. #QandA jahan_tyson"

I think they stem from a new generation of texting **** zombies.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (22 August 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> Well more like actors reading a script.
> 
> The comments at the bottom of the screen through the whole show is annoying. Inexperienced, nonsensical and many ill-informed tweets. If spur of the moment thoughts are controling these people's lives then it is going to be a rough road for them. For example this tweet referring to the scripted act on video is a typical ...
> 
> "How COOL are these kids. If they're any measure, the future is in great hands. #QandA jahan_tyson"




It must be over 2 years since I watched Qanda. 

I've got grandchildren now and get my 8c a day out of Playschool etc etc. 

gg


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 September 2017)

Q&A has SSM political pusher Penny Wong and Sarah (Save the Whales) Hanson Young. Should be good.


----------



## SirRumpole (18 September 2017)

Same old same old from SHY. Open the borders to the Rohingah's who are Muslim trouble makers and make us again the dumping ground for other countries failures and leave us open for future terrorist attacks.


----------



## luutzu (19 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> Same old same old from SHY. Open the borders to the Rohingah's who are Muslim trouble makers and make us again the dumping ground for other countries failures and leave us open for future terrorist attacks.




Jesus H Christ man. 

They're literally running for their lives as the their homes are literally lit on fire, their women raped and children shot at. 

I thought the military was China-backed until I heard US majority leader Mitch the old turtle McConnell telling the Senate it's not productive to criticise An Synn Su Chi [mispelled her name for sure] on what the UN called a genocide against the Muslims.

That and it goes against the general narrative of Muslims/Islam being bad dudes in any conflict.


----------



## dutchie (19 September 2017)

S H Y calls Hanson loony. What a hoot.
S H Y is the biggest loony in the parliament!


----------



## PZ99 (19 September 2017)

Both Hansons are anything but S H Y


----------



## SirRumpole (19 September 2017)

luutzu said:


> That and it goes against the general narrative of Muslims/Islam being bad dudes in any conflict.




It's too complicated for us to get embroiled in. The Rohingas have links to Al Quaeda and started off by attacking police stations in Myanmar. Let them sort it out themselves.


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's too complicated for us to get embroiled in. The Rohingas have links to Al Quaeda and started off by attacking police stations in Myanmar. Let them sort it out themselves.





yes they attacked police stations and an army base and wonder why they are getting the bejesus belted out of them. Usual suspects like peace luvvin' Al Qaeda revved 'em up , once again in the name of Islam


----------



## luutzu (19 September 2017)

SirRumpole said:


> It's too complicated for us to get embroiled in. The Rohingas have links to Al Quaeda and started off by attacking police stations in Myanmar. Let them sort it out themselves.




There's Al Qaeda there now?

And all 300,000 Rohingya attacked the military/police did they?

It's ethnic cleansing. Another proxy war between the US and China. 

China used to be in bed with the generals, the US managed to get the generals into its bed and now Al Qaeda's doing something.


----------



## notting (19 September 2017)

Generals are back with China, look what happens to people when China has the upper hand!


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 September 2017)

As a saviour for the human race, Sarah (can anyone hear me) Hanson Young is going to close all base load coal fired power plants now, ban the use of fossil fueled engines and walk to Canberra during the day (fix global warming). Greens fund tent cities, food stores and education facilities for the world's refugees (to lead by example). She really wanted to be a registered nurse.


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> As a saviour for the human race, Sarah (can anyone hear me) Hanson Young is going to close all base load coal fired power plants now, ban the use of fossil fueled engines and walk to Canberra during the day (fix global warming). Greens fund tent cities, food stores and education facilities for the world's refugees (to lead by example). She really wanted to be a registered nurse.





Another one who wants to trash our fine heritage of intolerance to foreigners until they have completed the initiation. It's not like we haven't got enough Asian food outlets already.


----------



## Wysiwyg (19 September 2017)

Tisme said:


> Another one who wants to trash our fine heritage of intolerance to foreigners until they have completed the initiation. It's not like we haven't got enough Asian food outlets already.



No don't worry about assimilation. A laugh, some slang, a barby, a w'end at the beach or bush camp. No just box 'em up on the dole west of Sydney to slowly fester hate against the white bigoted c's of Australia supporting the U.S. military/political campaign in the M.E.


----------



## Tisme (19 September 2017)

Wysiwyg said:


> No don't worry about assimilation. A laugh, some slang, a barby, a w'end at the beach or bush camp. No just box 'em up on the dole west of Sydney to slowly fester hate against the white bigoted c's of Australia supporting the U.S. military/political campaign in the M.E.





Yeah  I don't know when we made it comfortable for them to be  miserable . I wonder if the whole welcome thing stopped when the law was changed to make us like and be civil to  migrants, instead of just  letting us do what we always did and let the bigots and arseholes make us look good for being showoffs and accomodating.

I've always been one trot over and say hello and invite to the next barbie. I actually like people regardless of their ethnicity and migrants are always so happy to be be safe, free and excitable.... except for kiwis, they can't be trusted no way.


----------



## luutzu (19 September 2017)

notting said:


> Generals are back with China, look what happens to people when China has the upper hand!




The same thing as any other group getting the upper hand 

It's all over the (overseas) VNese press that high ranking Viet generals/comrades now carry their own drinks and watch what they eat and who they play around with. 

A couple of senior generals who's too pro-US/Western find themselves mysteriously sick and die in a real hurry after a visit to Beijing.

But then I heard these from American Viet news sources so it could be biased. But this is definitely an Asian century of war.


----------



## SirRumpole (20 September 2017)

Asylum seeker from Myanmar sets fire to bank.

You still want to let them in Sarah ?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-19/springvale-bank-fire-cctv-footage-aired-in-court/8960540


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 September 2017)

A few spoil it for the rest. Same in a community, same across the world. I have had to sit a psychometric test for employment before and I wonder if that method could be used for adult refugees. Clearly some are all f'd up mentally from whatever they have been through and seek to vent their anger anywhere, anyway.


----------



## Tisme (27 March 2018)

Whaddya reckon Bas ... should I mix with the pointy heads?

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/peoples-panel.htm


----------



## Tisme (3 July 2018)

So we had an ABC neuter Tom host last night who decided to carry the male protector torch for all those women who like to think they want equality, but hide behind males for protection. 

Why Cory Bernadi is responsible for what some else said, responsible for all men who won't bend to the will of the ABC misandrist cause, responsible for everything Virginia Trioli rides a **** horse on for personal glorification, is very confusing. but why not he's a male all said and done.


----------



## SirRumpole (3 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> Whaddya reckon Bas ... should I mix with the pointy heads?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/peoples-panel.htm




Yeah, go for it !


----------



## PZ99 (3 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> Whaddya reckon Bas ... should I mix with the pointy heads?
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/peoples-panel.htm



No way! 

You have to declare political allegiances that can be used against you in a court of 4 corners.


----------



## Tisme (4 July 2018)

PZ99 said:


> No way!
> 
> You have to declare political allegiances that can be used against you in a court of 4 corners.




We could make up a party ...any ideas?


----------



## PZ99 (4 July 2018)

Tisme said:


> We could make up a party ...any ideas?



Yeppers... GDP21, the Gobbledok Democratic Party..

_for those with a chipp on their shoulder over 21st century politics._


----------



## Tisme (4 July 2018)

PZ99 said:


> Yeppers... GDP21, the Gobbledok Democratic Party..
> 
> _for those with a chipp on their shoulder over 21st century politics._
> 
> View attachment 88151




Or When I wozaboy party?


----------



## basilio (21 September 2020)

This is scary.

It certainly reflects on why we need a strong independent Media.
*Also puts on the line the authoritarianism of the CCP.*

*'You will be put into detention': Former ABC bureau chief tells story of fleeing China for first time*









						When I was ordered to come in for a 'cup of tea', I knew my life in China would change
					

After my departure from Beijing I was reluctant to report what had happened because I did not want to put ABC staff at risk. But all that changed with the expulsion of Bill Birtles and Mike Smith, writes former Beijing bureau chief Matthew Carney.




					www.abc.net.au


----------

