# Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth...



## Timmy (14 May 2010)

Wow, some pretty frank headlines in the broadsheets this morning, not very complimentary to Mr. Abbott:

From the front page of _The Australian_ website:
*'WIMP': Abbott evades question* (http://www.theaustralian.com.au/)

Full story here, with slightly less provocative heading:
*I'm a wimp, Tony Abbott declares on Neil Mitchell radio show*
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...chell-radio-show/story-e6frgd66-1225866735332

_The Age_ gets into him too:
*'Wimp' Tony Abbott tries to wriggle out of a policy backflip*
From the front page of The Age website (http://www.theage.com.au/)

The story is a video piece: http://media.smh.com.au/national/national-news/tony-abbott-im-a-wimp-1450030.html?from=newsbox

_The Age_ has another story on the front page of their website about him too:
*POLLIES AND PORKIES Snitched: Abbott caught out*

The heading is, again, not very complimentary:
*Abbott caught out dodging truth on reckless spending*
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...kless-spending-20100514-v2w6.html?autostart=1

They have even photoshopped a pic of him:






_The Sydney Morning Herald_, not be outdone in all this, carries the same image of the Pinnochio-nosed Mr. Abbott on the front page of its website, but a much larger image than that carried in _The Age_ with the slightly different headline:
*Pollies and porkies Tony Abbott's first instinct on radio today was not a good look for a leader*
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...kless-spending-20100514-v2w6.html?autostart=1

Getting interesting out there.


----------



## drsmith (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

Who in the Shadow Cabinet leaked ?

Someone in there don't like him very much, at least not as leader.


----------



## Bushman (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

How they must wish that Peter Costello was still around. 

Abbott is a head kicker, not a statesman. The bumbling Labour party have given the Coalition the initiative on a silver platter if they have the eloquence and cunning to seize it.


----------



## moXJO (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

Liberals don't have a chance with Abbott imo. Does not have my vote.


----------



## drsmith (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



Bushman said:


> How they must wish that Peter Costello was still around.



To make matters worse, Malcolm Turnbull is damaged goods due to his position on the ETS.

Peter Costello by now must have a very sore bum from his own boot.


----------



## Mofra (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

Who else is there to lead the Libs?
We need a credible alternative to Rudd & his spendalot team, but Abbott is political poison to large groups of voters.

Big Jolly Hockey? There aren't any standout candidates.


----------



## SM Junkie (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

I don't think Abbott will win the next election, rather Rudd will loose it.
I'm backing a return of Costello.


----------



## trainspotter (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

I am confused. A Liberal Party "think tank" (if there is such a thing?) throw around some ideas to rebutt the Labor Budget. One of them happens to be a $10,000 inducement for stay at home mothers and it is leaked to the press gallery. A shock jock questions him on it and the Mad Monk stumbles around the question at hand and denies it was a policy (which it never was, just a suggestion) then the press reckons he is pinocchio? 

The same question was put to the Rabbott on the Today Show by Julia Gizzard for a similar response I might add ?? Ahh aah aaah ... well Julia we  .... Aahhh ahhh it was discussed but so were many other things ... aaaah Aahhh .... Labor is a bunch of nancy girls ..... aaaah aaaaah . Julia Gizzard then b!tch slaps him across the floor.


----------



## moXJO (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



trainspotter said:


> Julia Gizzard then b!tch slaps him across the floor.




Any wonder that Malcom came running back to the liberal party. Abbott was good as a head kicker for someone else, but just not up to leader material himself.
Big Joe just does not have the work ethic.


----------



## wayneL (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



SM Junkie said:


> I don't think Abbott will win the next election, rather Rudd will loose it.
> I'm backing a return of Costello.




Yes please.


----------



## drsmith (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



trainspotter said:


> I am confused. A Liberal Party "think tank" (if there is such a thing?) throw around some ideas to rebutt the Labor Budget. One of them happens to be a $10,000 inducement for stay at home mothers and it is leaked to the press gallery.



There's nothing wrong with them discussing it although this idea (along with his paid maternity leave) is very much like Howard's middle class welfare election pork barrelling than true economic conservatism.

The fact that it was leaked (inparticular behind Abbott's back) demonstrates that the Shadow Cabinet is not acting as a team behind Abbott. This is deeply concerning for the Coalition's electoral prospects. The current ALP government is crap but the Coalition have to be able to govern themselves before they can govern anything else.

Joe Hockey is no good as he is a fence sitter (re ETS).


----------



## Whiskers (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



Bushman said:


> Abbott is a head kicker, not a statesman.




Yeah, it looks like he can't quite make the step up.

As others have said there is a bit too much of that factional fighting going on that the ALP was famous for. 

In the absence of Costello, there is Ian Macfarlane and Andrew Robb, both go getters and capable leaders that may be more acceptable to the electorate than Abbott.


----------



## drsmith (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

Neil Mitchell is a good interviewer.

http://www.3aw.com.au/blogs/3aw-generic-blog/tony-abbotts-budget-reply/20100513-v08d.html

Tony Abbott did answer some questions well but along with the above also copped some deserved stick over consistency with funding his paid parental leave from a corporate tax increase.

Overall he's more than a match for Tony Abbott.


----------



## wayneL (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



Whiskers said:


> Yeah, it looks like he can't quite make the step up.
> 
> As others have said there is a bit too much of that factional fighting going on that the ALP was famous for.
> 
> In the absence of Costello, there is Ian Macfarlane and Andrew Robb, both go getters and capable leaders that may be more acceptable to the electorate than Abbott.




Keating was also a headkicker, but still managed to win an election over a viable (if naive) opposition.

There are times for headkickers in politics. I reckon now is one of those times for the Liberal party.


----------



## Whiskers (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



wayneL said:


> Keating was also a headkicker, but still managed to win an election over a viable (if naive) opposition.
> 
> There are times for headkickers in politics. I reckon now is one of those times for the Liberal party.




Ian (Chainsaw) Macfarlane from Joh Bjelke-Petersen country has a decent aussie gruff pedigree. Since he was one of the so called "Dirty Dozen" he might be more paletable to not so loyal Labor supporters as a compromise.


----------



## Calliope (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

Today is the day that Abbott can look back on as the day he lost it. He was never leadership material, but he might have just got away with it, if he could handle himself in an interview, but he just goes to water and looks and sounds pathetic.

I don't have any idea who they can replace him with, but for god's sake not Hockey. The Libs will probably have no choice but to offer the crown to Turnbull, but I'm afraid their popularity has peaked and will now be in free fall.


----------



## Calliope (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

SMH Poll



> Poll: Politicians and honesty
> 
> Who do you think is more straight talking?
> 
> ...




And yet Gillard has the longest nose.


----------



## bunyip (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



Whiskers said:


> Ian (Chainsaw) Macfarlane from Joh Bjelke-Petersen country has a decent aussie gruff pedigree. Since he was one of the so called "Dirty Dozen" he might be more paletable to not so loyal Labor supporters as a compromise.




Does his handle of 'Chainsaw' come from his gravely voice? (the result of throat cancer some years ago)
Pretty solid bloke with his head screwed on - well at least that's the reputation he's got around my area where he hails from. I've met him in person and I agree with that assessment.
Leadership material? I'm not sure - perhaps he's not the dynamic personality that voters tend to favour.


----------



## c-unit (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

Not sure why the media are running so hard with this. Who gives a **** what they were discussing behind closed doors? It's what is in the policy that matters.

Why wasn't Rudd's outburst on the 7.30 report pasted all over the papers? Why aren't they highlighting the fact that our own treasurer doesn't understand economics? And why isn't the government's budget and it's shaky assumptions (tiny surplus 3 years away assuming perfect business conditions ffs) scrutinized in the media.

It really is a disgrace. We just cannot afford another term of Kevin Rudd. Quite clearly the worst Prime Minister of all time.


----------



## Timmy (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



Calliope said:


> And yet Gillard has the longest nose.




And the biggest balls (in a metaphorical sense of course ....).


----------



## Julia (14 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



Whiskers said:


> In the absence of Costello, there is Ian Macfarlane and Andrew Robb, both go getters and capable leaders that may be more acceptable to the electorate than Abbott.



For me it would be a big NO to both of these, neither of whom I find at all convincing.  



Calliope said:


> Today is the day that Abbott can look back on as the day he lost it. He was never leadership material, but he might have just got away with it, if he could handle himself in an interview, but he just goes to water and looks and sounds pathetic.
> 
> I don't have any idea who they can replace him with, but for god's sake not Hockey. The Libs will probably have no choice but to offer the crown to Turnbull, but I'm afraid their popularity has peaked and will now be in free fall.



I couldn't agree more, Calliope.   Someone should be coaching Mr Abbott who seems capable of attack only when he takes the initiative, then being woefully tongue tied and sheepish when on the receiving end.
He even looks shifty when he's searching for a response which just exacerbates his image problem.   Just cannot see him leading the country.





c-unit said:


> Not sure why the media are running so hard with this. Who gives a **** what they were discussing behind closed doors? It's what is in the policy that matters.
> 
> Why wasn't Rudd's outburst on the 7.30 report pasted all over the papers? Why aren't they highlighting the fact that our own treasurer doesn't understand economics? And why isn't the government's budget and it's shaky assumptions (tiny surplus 3 years away assuming perfect business conditions ffs) scrutinized in the media.



I don't know about the commercial media, but ABC radio gave both these stuff-ups a lot of airtime, especially Rudd's bad temper on the 7.30 Report.
Considering that the ABC is widely held to be the government's mouthpiece, they did a pretty good job of lambasting the PM.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (15 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



c-unit said:


> Why aren't they highlighting the fact that our own treasurer doesn't understand economics? And why isn't the government's budget and it's shaky assumptions (tiny surplus 3 years away assuming perfect business conditions ffs) scrutinized in the media.
> 
> It really is a disgrace. We just cannot afford another term of Kevin Rudd. Quite clearly the worst Prime Minister of all time.




Good points made.


----------



## IFocus (15 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



wayneL said:


> Keating was also a headkicker, but still managed to win an election over a viable (if naive) opposition.
> 
> There are times for headkickers in politics. I reckon now is one of those times for the Liberal party.




How I miss Keating he added a real pulse to politics in this country Costello had the same potential unfortunate he didn't reach his full potential now we just have a bunch of second rate wannabes.


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



Timmy said:


> And the biggest balls (*in a metaphorical sense of course* ....).




Are you sure? ::


----------



## Timmy (15 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



wayneL said:


> Are you sure? ::




No ...........


----------



## Calliope (15 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

We will know for sure whether Ms Gillard has cojones, when, or if she challenges Rudd for the leadership. Picking on a wimp is just bullying.


----------



## drsmith (15 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

Julia Gillard's trophy piece after she knocks Kevin Rudd off for the leadership


----------



## Dowdy (15 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

I was listening to that interview and when he said that I just though who is this guy. He's a terrible in interviews and as a leader but I'll still vote for him just to kick Rudd out.


----------



## Whiskers (15 May 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

One thing that I really like about Abbotts policies released so far is the return to Local Hospital Boards.

Since Rudd's scheme initally had local networks (forgot the correct phrase) managing the money, BUT the states insisted they manage the spending, I'm becoming curious how Abbott intends to return to Local Hospital Boards... or is it a case of 'liar, wimp, dodging truth' ...


----------



## Timmy (22 July 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*

I know he is a self-confessed liar and wimp but watching him so far I can't help but think I might give him a vote just out of sympathy.  

Poor bastard.  

He is in way over his depth and is surrounded by well-meaning but incompetent buffoons.  The fruit shop boat people debacle ... I watched it unfold with my hands in front of my eyes ... and I am ashamed to say the urge to guffaw proved irresistible.  My tears were from laughter.


----------



## Calliope (22 July 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



Timmy said:


> I know he is a self-confessed liar and wimp but watching him so far I can't help but think I might give him a vote just out of sympathy.
> 
> Poor bastard.
> 
> He is in way over his depth and is surrounded by well-meaning but incompetent buffoons.  The fruit shop boat people debacle ... I watched it unfold with my hands in front of my eyes ... and I am ashamed to say the urge to guffaw proved irresistible.  My tears were from laughter.




We are supposed to feel sorry for the victims of bullying, but this bloke invites it with his antics.

He is dodging Kerry O"Brien who is slavering at the mouth to bully him about his work choices stuff-ups.

He has promised to appear next week.  It will be pitiful to watch.

I guess he is just not foreman material.


----------



## Timmy (22 July 2010)

*Re: Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ...*



Calliope said:


> I guess he is just not foreman material.




 .


----------



## tech/a (22 July 2010)

Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ... self serving---power monger----hidden agenda---

Hang on---that covers EVERY politician on the planet!


----------



## overit (22 July 2010)

Its disgraceful how the media seem to be letting labor off the hook over and over for worse crimes against the population. Well I guess Gillard may have told one truth. Aker getting the sack makes room in the salary cap!


----------



## SmellyTerror (23 July 2010)

I remember after the Libs lost the last election and Tony put himself up for the leadership, I was absolutely gleeful in my mockery. He’d been the stand-out WORST performer in the whole sorry election, and was probably personally responsible for a couple of percentage points being knocked off the national vote for the Libs. The gall of the silly man, to stand for leadership after that comically woeful effort – and he was predictably slaughtered in the vote that day…

…and yet, here we are. Probably Kevin’s greatest triumph: somehow, he forced Abbot on the Libs.

Not that I think he’s a terrible human being or anything. He seems a reasonably principled person, compared with the usual drek in parliament (which is extremely faint praise, but praise nonetheless). I disagree with pretty much everything he brings to politics, but he’s not an idiot.  He’s just an awful, AWFUL politician. 

What were the Libs thinking?


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> I remember after the Libs lost the last election and Tony put himself up for the leadership, I was absolutely gleeful in my mockery. He’d been the stand-out WORST performer in the whole sorry election, and was probably personally responsible for a couple of percentage points being knocked off the national vote for the Libs. The gall of the silly man, to stand for leadership after that comically woeful effort – and he was predictably slaughtered in the vote that day…
> 
> …and yet, here we are. Probably Kevin’s greatest triumph: somehow, he forced Abbot on the Libs.
> 
> ...




As one of the few "self-proclaimed" battlers on ASF I have to disagree with the points you make here ST.

At the moment Tony Abbott is the only person with any ticker to actually stand up for people on average incomes. He is willing to stand up against the junk science crap being peddled by many others. He is doing quite well in his role. Copenhagen was an expensive junket that he claimed would resolve nothing. 

What did Copenhagen resolve??

NOTHING

He is actually doing ok at present and cares more about family budgets than the others.


----------



## kotim (23 July 2010)

Abbbot is one of the more principaled people in politics, putting aside ABBOTT, I am going to vote liberal for the first time in my life, my 27 years of voting is down the labour track, but I can't stand it anymore.  Imagine if GILLARD and the greens have control, may as well put a picture of Fidel CASTRO up on my wall


----------



## Julia (23 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Not that I think he’s a terrible human being or anything. He seems a reasonably principled person, compared with the usual drek in parliament (which is extremely faint praise, but praise nonetheless). I disagree with pretty much everything he brings to politics, but he’s not an idiot.  He’s just an awful, AWFUL politician.
> 
> What were the Libs thinking?



I think you might be underestimating his appeal to about half the electorate, largely for the reason offered by Gumby and Kotim.

There are a lot of people utterly fed up with Labor's repetitive spin ("Moving forward together" repeated 30 times in an interview e.g.), their apparently endless desire to keep spending money despite the Reserve Bank having to increase the interest rate several times to rein in the economy/inflation, and a deep disgust at the way Kevin Rudd was despatched.

Imo Mr Abbott's biggest mistake so far is his absolute rejection of changing any workplace legislation which is alienating his core constituency, small and medium business.   That's way more important to his success or otherwise than his unpolished manner.


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2010)

Politics is one of those vocations that if you are principled and do have an economic strategy you will not last long. You may go into politics with the zeal of a reformist convert but you soon learn that without the factional support you get NOTHING. Just drink the Kool-Aid. Kiss some babies. Place snout in trough. Get re-elected. Not that hard really.

Abbott may be many things that are unappealing due to the changing politial climate as he still believes in God, marriage to the opposite sex, a fair go, non unionist, hard working, nuclear family etc etc.

Totally opposite to the bleeding heart brigade who are atheist, gay/bi/tri/blended/whatever, wheres mine atttitude, No ticket No start, lazy, who is my Daddy? etc etc. who seem to be gaining a majority, mob rule mentality. 

Yep .... let's not vote for this man.


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (23 July 2010)

tech/a said:


> Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ... self serving---power monger----hidden agenda---
> 
> Hang on---that covers EVERY politician on the planet!




Beat me to it! Exactly what I was thinking  Shock horror, a politician is a liar


----------



## Calliope (23 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> I disagree with pretty much everything he brings to politics, but he’s not an idiot.  He’s just an awful, AWFUL politician.




Yes, and because he is a decent man he is hated and despised by the whole union movement which is prepared to spend much of their massive ill-gotten war chest to put him down.

And as you said on another thread, the Labor movement and the Union movement are the same thing. Ergo the unions will be running the country if Gillard wins. The country will be run by bullies with few scruples.


----------



## Twiddle (23 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> Abbott may be many things that are unappealing due to the changing politial climate as he still believes in God, marriage to the opposite sex, a fair go, non unionist, hard working, nuclear family etc etc.
> 
> Totally opposite to the bleeding heart brigade who are atheist, gay/bi/tri/blended/whatever, wheres mine atttitude, No ticket No start, lazy, who is my Daddy? etc etc. who seem to be gaining a majority, mob rule mentality.
> 
> Yep .... let's not vote for this man.




Interesting... So gay people and Atheists are innately lazy and generally bad people? 

Gee, someone better tell bill gates and Warren Buffet to stop giving away billions of dollars to charity and start living up to the proper evil Atheist ways.


----------



## Calliope (23 July 2010)

Twiddle said:


> Interesting... So gay people and Atheists are innately lazy and generally bad people?
> 
> Gee, someone better tell bill gates and Warren Buffet to stop giving away billions of dollars to charity and start living up to the proper evil Atheist ways.




Twiddle, you talk twaddle.


----------



## Timmy (23 July 2010)

ThingyMajiggy said:


> Beat me to it!




Thread was started on 14 May Sam.  Ya gotta get off that dial-up connection dude! :


----------



## Twiddle (23 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> Twiddle, you talk twaddle.




How clever. You replaced the third letter of my handle.

By implication of you calling what I wrote "twaddle", I assume you also hate gays and Atheists?

Wow, I didn't know there was so much biggotry on these forums.


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2010)

Twiddle said:


> Interesting... So gay people and Atheists are innately lazy and generally bad people?
> 
> Gee, someone better tell bill gates and Warren Buffet to stop giving away billions of dollars to charity and start living up to the proper evil Atheist ways.




ROFL Twiddle ....... generalisations just wash right over you don't they ! Malapropism is compeltely wasted in this instance. Commas also delineate the section of phrase per se'.


----------



## Twiddle (23 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> ROFL Twiddle ....... generalisations just wash right over you don't they ! Malapropism is compeltely wasted in this instance.




Wow. Crank up the ol irony meter again.

Look at what you just wrote.

"Generalistions just wash over you." That in itself is a generalisation, since you have a sample base of one. 

I understand generalisations AKA stereotypes very well. I don't know why you think pointing out the fact that you were unfairly stereotyping people somehow emancipates you of bigotry.

You are entitled to your world view, in which you think Atheists and gays are (generally) bad people. But don't be surprised when people call you on it.


----------



## SmellyTerror (23 July 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> At the moment Tony Abbott is the only person with any ticker to actually stand up for people on average incomes. He is willing to stand up against the junk science crap being peddled by many others.




You're not disagreeing with me. I have explained myself poorly. As I said: "*He seems a reasonably principled person*, compared with the usual drek in parliament (which is extremely faint praise, but praise nonetheless). I disagree with pretty much everything he brings to politics, but he’s not an idiot."

My point is that he blunders about making trouble for himself, always has. Sadly, this has nothing to do with his policies (which I like or dislike on their merits) but will nevertheless affect how he is treated by the media, and hence his party’s chance of winning.

*Julia:* you don’t find the pathetic phrase “Great Big New Tax” equally ridiculous spin? What, someone decided that the voters can’t handle more than single syllable words?

…and re: Kevin’s dispatch: who the hell cares? It’s happened before, it’ll happen again. *A lot of Libs wanted Costello to do exactly that*, and still wish he had. Welcome to politics. But now it’s one of the few things the Libs can campaign on (cf almost complete lack of difference in policy), now it’s suddenly a matter of deep principle? Pfff.

And re: small business: it really does seem to me that Labor’s policies have been more friendly to small business than the Libs for a long time. How many small businesses loved the “simpler” GST? Or loved income tax cuts while business got squat? And now Lab wants company tax to go down, and Lib wants it up. The issue of Work Choices is nothing by comparison: noting that Casuals do not now, or have ever had, any recourse to unfair dismissal laws (it’s perfectly legal to just take them off the roster without explanation). So why most small businesses give a crap about industrial relations is beyond me.

So why exactly are small businesses the Libs’ core again? Neither party gives the slightest damn about consistency, and haven’t for decades. Again, it’s a constant surprise to me that people still believe in the brand-names. The Libs are no more the party of business than the Labs are the party of the workers.


----------



## wayneL (23 July 2010)

tech/a said:


> Tony Abbott - liar, wimp, dodging truth ... self serving---power monger----hidden agenda---
> 
> *Hang on---that covers EVERY politician on the planet!*




It is a rare day when I am in unqualified agreement with tech/a...

...DITTO!


----------



## SmellyTerror (23 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> And as you said on another thread, the Labor movement and the Union movement are the same thing. Ergo the unions will be running the country if Gillard wins. The country will be run by bullies with few scruples.




My point was that they are SUPPOSED to be the same thing, but then actually fail to do that. What the Labs do for the unions is so close to nothing that it's hard to tell the difference.

Which is about the same amount that the Libs do for business.


----------



## Mofra (23 July 2010)

kotim said:


> Abbbot is one of the more principaled people in politics



He is completely disowning workchoices, a policy he strongly believes in, for political gain.
Abbott is certainly no better than any of the others.


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2010)

Twiddle said:


> Wow. Crank up the ol irony meter again.
> 
> Look at what you just wrote.
> 
> ...




LOL Twiddle ... the post was an antithesis of itself. You have completely missed the point. I do not think atheists are gay or are bad people. The COMMAS are to delineate the generalisations. GOSH ! Go and read the post again. The post was meant to show what ABBOTT stands for which has now changed in the real world. 

What part of this do you fail to understand or how can I explain it to you so that you can grasp the written word. So let me get this straight .... I am a bigoted sterotypical gay hating atheist? PMSL ...... please don't tell me what I think.


----------



## Calliope (23 July 2010)

Twiddle said:


> By implication of you calling what I wrote "twaddle", I assume you also hate gays and Atheists?




Your inference is fallacious reasoning.


----------



## Twiddle (23 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> Your inference is fallacious reasoning.




How so?

Let me break it down simply.

my post = Gay people are Atheists are not inherently bad.

your post = my post is twaddle.

Ergo, your post equates to: Gay people are Atheists are not inherently bad = twaddle.


----------



## Twiddle (23 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> LOL Twiddle ... the post was an antithesis of itself. You have completely missed the point. I do not think atheists are gay or are bad people. The COMMAS are to delineate the generalisations. GOSH ! Go and read the post again. The post was meant to show what ABBOTT stands for which has now changed in the real world.
> 
> What part of this do you fail to understand or how can I explain it to you so that you can grasp the written word. So let me get this straight .... I am a bigoted sterotypical gay hating atheist? PMSL ...... please don't tell me what I think.




Rubbish.

Your post in constructed in such a way: 

Lets start at the end...

You write; "Let's not vote for this man", with a banging head. Implying "Geez come on people, why can't you see that we SHOULD vote for him."

Moving up to the prior sentences we see that you believe you have made the case for the conclusion, in the following way:

First you list the things you find desirable, or things that you believe people should want:
_"God, marriage to the opposite sex, a fair go, non unionist, hard working, nuclear family"_

Then you list as the contrast to this, the things that you want to play off as being undesirable:
_"atheist, gay/bi/tri/blended/whatever, wheres mine atttitude, No ticket No start, lazy, who is my Daddy? etc etc. who seem to be gaining a majority, mob rule mentality."_

By way of implication things that do not make the first list are not good/desirable. And because Tony Abbot stands for the first list, he should be voted for.

Unless of course your last statement was not sarcastic, in which case the banging head icon is very confusing.


----------



## nunthewiser (23 July 2010)

at least julia loves everybody


----------



## ThingyMajiggy (23 July 2010)

Timmy said:


> Thread was started on 14 May Sam.  Ya gotta get off that dial-up connection dude! :




Hey! Dial-up is the latest thing here, now excuse me, going to watch a new movie out called Titanic, supposed to be pretty good, got a few awards from what I hear.


----------



## Julia (23 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> My point is that he blunders about making trouble for himself, always has. Sadly, this has nothing to do with his policies (which I like or dislike on their merits) but will nevertheless affect how he is treated by the media, and hence his party’s chance of winning.



You're quite right about this.   Mr Abbott's supporters, however, would contend that it's his attempts to actually provide a genuine answer to questions that stuffs him up.   He should have learned by now that it's way safer to just repeat the party spin and ignore the actual question, a strategy perfected by the government with the exception of very few of its members.



> *Julia:* you don’t find the pathetic phrase “Great Big New Tax” equally ridiculous spin? What, someone decided that the voters can’t handle more than single syllable words?



Why is it that if a poster points out something irritating about the government, you automatically assume that poster is in favour of anything similar offered by the opposition?   To try to be a little objective I'd say that the "Great Big New Tax" is also simplistic, but (a) it has not been repeated as often as "Moving Forward" and clearly was pretty effective in making the government wipe its ETS, and (b) the public have scoffed at "moving forward" from its inception, yet Ms Gillard keeps flogging it.



> …and re: Kevin’s dispatch: who the hell cares? It’s happened before, it’ll happen again. *A lot of Libs wanted Costello to do exactly that*, and still wish he had. Welcome to politics. But now it’s one of the few things the Libs can campaign on (cf almost complete lack of difference in policy), now it’s suddenly a matter of deep principle? Pfff.



You may feel that way and that's fine.  But my point was that many, many *voters*, according to the pollsters and on talkback radio, feel deeply unhappy about it, even if they didn't like Mr Rudd.  And if there are enough of these voters deterred from voting Labor as a result, then it matters.
I've not made any comment personally about how I feel about it.


*Twiddle:*You seem to be doing the same thing as Smelly Terror.
If Trainspotter makes an observation about the voter base of either party, that doesn't necessarily imply that he regards any/all of that base as desirable or undesirable, good or bad.  He's simply stating how he sees it to be.

The attribution of general comments to representing the poster's personal views is a bit silly and leads to the sort of squabbles that eventually get threads shut down.

Surely we can put up differing points of view without having to resort to personal insults and silly sophistry.


----------



## Twiddle (23 July 2010)

Julia said:


> *Twiddle:*You seem to be doing the same thing as Smelly Terror.
> If Trainspotter makes an observation about the voter base of either party, that doesn't necessarily imply that he regards any/all of that base as desirable or undesirable, good or bad.  He's simply stating how he sees it to be.
> 
> The attribution of general comments to representing the poster's personal views is a bit silly and leads to the sort of squabbles that eventually get threads shut down.
> ...





Julia, fair enough.

I do not accept that the generalisations asserted are correct however.

Atheists more likely to vote Labour? Not in my experience.

Homosexuals? Well maybe due to the fact that god fearing people such as Mr Abbott beleive they deserve to be tortured for eternity. That would probably be enough reason for me not to vote for him. It wouldn't mean that I would change my views on economy, health etc, which should be at the root of your decision of who to vote for.

And really, honestly look at the list he gave. Exclude gays and Atheists for a second, every single one of the other things in the list is easily distinguishable as a negative characteristic. 

_"atheist, gay/bi/tri/blended/whatever, wheres mine atttitude, No ticket No start, lazy, who is my Daddy? etc etc. who seem to be gaining a majority, mob rule mentality."_

Can you honestly say that it is not trying to be an inclusive negative list?

It would be a strange thing to do to include two things you are neutral about in a list of 11 things clearly emotively charged to indicate negativity/bad things.


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 July 2010)

kotim said:


> Abbbot is one of the more principaled people in politics, putting aside ABBOTT, I am going to vote liberal for the first time in my life, my 27 years of voting is down the labour track, but I can't stand it anymore.  Imagine if GILLARD and the greens have control, may as well put a picture of Fidel CASTRO up on my wall




I think I understand where you are coming from kotim.

It's either vote for Gillard and a new carbon tax regime that is pro big government, pro banker & pro big miners. And pay more carbon tax to make up for the income tax cuts many Aussies received from successful Howard/Costello budgets. And tune into Carbon Cops on the ABC to find out ways to pay the weekly bills. 

Or it's vote Coalition and change to the *regulation* of workplace legislation. Which could be detrimental to a lot of salary earners but maybe not as bad as having to pay greater costs of living to the Government via a carbon tax.

Or vote Greens and learn to sing this. While you save for 10 years to buy a Prius.



Tough call for sure.


----------



## SmellyTerror (23 July 2010)

Julia said:


> Why is it that if a poster points out something irritating about the government, you automatically assume that poster is in favour of anything similar offered by the opposition?




Err, is that what I assumed? Here we are in a thread about *Abbott*, and I showed that *Abbott *is just as happy to bang on with a bull**** catchphrase as anyone else.

I'd have thought talking about *Abbott* in a thread about *Abbott* was, you know, *on topic*.

And although I wasn't implying anything about your position, I guess it's fair to wonder why you're keen to bash Gillard in a thread about *Abbott*... I said he does poorly in the (silly) game of politics, you said, essentially, that voters respond to his lack of spin (look! Gillard does it and voters hate that!), and I gave an example of him doing some really awful spin. 

So if he is relying on a lack of spin to get to voters, it just reinforces my point that he's bad at all of this if I show he does blatant spin, doesn't it?

Dunno why you're getting cranky.



> You may feel that way and that's fine.  But my point was that many, many *voters*, according to the pollsters and on talkback radio, feel deeply unhappy about it, even if they didn't like Mr Rudd.  And if there are enough of these voters deterred from voting Labor as a result, then it matters.
> I've not made any comment personally about how I feel about it.




And I didn't make any comment about how you feel about it either. Did I?

I'm pointing out that it's a big media issue (and hence a big talk-back radio / media poll issue) because the opposition has chosen to make it a big issue. That's their perrogative. I just don't see how, logically, it actually matters. Everyone does it.

By the way, you can get many many voters to agree to pretty much anything. If we're going on talkback radio, I could listen to Triple J and dig up some polls and tell you that "many, many *voters*, according to the pollsters and on talkback radio, feel deeply unhappy about (insert any Labor party attack-phrase)".



> *Twiddle:*You seem to be doing the same thing as Smelly Terror.
> If Trainspotter makes an observation about the voter base of either party, that doesn't necessarily imply that he regards any/all of that base as desirable or undesirable, good or bad.  He's simply stating how he sees it to be.
> 
> The attribution of general comments to representing the poster's personal views is a bit silly and leads to the sort of squabbles that eventually get threads shut down.




Yeah, that's exactly what I'm doing... 

All I've said is that Abbott is bad at politics, policies aside. As far as I can tell, that actually agrees with you. So I'm a bit baffled by the snark, here.

This is what you said, remember?



> Someone should be coaching Mr Abbott who seems capable of attack only when he takes the initiative, then being woefully tongue tied and sheepish when on the receiving end.
> He even looks shifty when he's searching for a response which just exacerbates his image problem. Just cannot see him leading the country



.

...but in saying the same thing, you think I'm making wild accusations about people's beliefs.

So maybe... maybe you're guilty of what you're accusing others of, here?


----------



## Duckman#72 (23 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Err, is that what I assumed? Here we are in a thread about *Abbott*, and I showed that *Abbott *is just as happy to bang on with a bull**** catchphrase as anyone else.
> 
> I'd have thought talking about *Abbott* in a thread about *Abbott* was, you know, *on topic*.
> 
> ...




Except you are comparing apples with oranges.  A line like "A Great Big New Tax" is a slogan, it is gimicky but is it really spin? At least it means something, it is something tangible that people can relate to.

To me - spin is something that means nothing and stands for nothing and you can't actually quantify what it means. A good example is "Moving Forward". What does that actually mean...in regards to what?, moving to where?, because of why? It is all so nebulus.

Duckman


----------



## trainspotter (23 July 2010)

Twiddle said:


> Rubbish.
> 
> Your post in constructed in such a way:
> 
> ...




If this is how you interpret the post Twiddle then so be it. I can't help you any more. You have twisted what I have written beyond recognition to the slant that you want it to be read or understood in your eyes. I give up.

Just for comedy purposes I will try one more time. Ever heard of the word "antonym" ? If you look at the first sentence of what I have written about Tony Abbotts beliefs then correspond it for each and every other word in the second sentence you will find they are the direct opposite.

If this somehow causes you to go into some mental tangent about bigotry and gay bashing and "my world and beliefs" then ce'st La Vie.


----------



## Sean K (23 July 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> A good example is "Moving Forward". What does that actually mean...in regards to what?, moving to where?, because of why? It is all so nebulus.



Moving Forward is actually the second studio album by former New York Yankees outfielder turned jazz musician, Bernie Williams.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_Forward

Julia likes it.

As far as Abbott being a liar. Huh? Surely politicians don't tell lies?


----------



## GumbyLearner (23 July 2010)

kennas said:


> Moving Forward is actually the second studio album by former New York Yankees outfielder turned jazz musician, Bernie Williams.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_Forward
> 
> ...




Great post.You could always add Ray Williams HIH to that politician category list.


----------



## Julia (23 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> *Julia:* you don’t find the pathetic phrase “Great Big New Tax” equally ridiculous spin? What, someone decided that the voters can’t handle more than single syllable words?





SmellyTerror said:


> And although I wasn't implying anything about your position, I guess it's fair to wonder why you're keen to bash Gillard in a thread about *Abbott*...



That's just so silly, Smelly Terror.  Fairly obviously in a thread about one contender he/she is going to be compared with his/her opposite number.




> …and re: Kevin’s dispatch: who the hell cares? It’s happened before, it’ll happen again. *A lot of Libs wanted Costello to do exactly that*, and still wish he had. Welcome to politics. But now it’s one of the few things the Libs can campaign on (cf almost complete lack of difference in policy), now it’s suddenly a matter of deep principle? Pfff.







> Smelly Terror:I'm pointing out that it's a big media issue (and hence a big talk-back radio / media poll issue) because the opposition has chosen to make it a big issue. That's their perrogative. I just don't see how, logically, it actually matters.



Oh dear, how, logically, it matters is that if enough voters have sympathy with the notion that Ms Gillard was instrumental in some dodgy dealings re Rudd, particularly if she came to an agreement with him, then broke it to further her own ambition,  it will influence their vote and hence the result of the election.
There is no way you can say it doesn't matter.

















Y


----------



## Calliope (23 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> I'm pointing out that it's a big media issue (and hence a big talk-back radio / media poll issue) because the opposition has chosen to make it a big issue. That's their *perrogative*. I just don't see how, logically, it actually matters. Everyone does it.




I think you mean *prerogative*. Your reasoning is as sloppy as your spelling.  You have a long winded way of saying nothing.


----------



## IFocus (24 July 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> Except you are comparing apples with oranges.  A line like "A Great Big New Tax" is a slogan, it is gimicky but is it really spin?
> 
> Duckman




Duckman please its politics of course its all spin, Keating ran the same argument against Hewson and the GST the idea being a simple cut through message.

They are all apples all be it rotten


----------



## Calliope (24 July 2010)

I have sent Tony Abbott a copy of the 10 cardinal rules for giving non-answers to questions at interviews. The Labor pollies are well versed in these rules but the Libs seem to think that trying to answer truthfully will win more votes. Wrong! It only subjects them to ridicule by ABC interviewers and commentators.

1. Silence is death. Talk a lot, but say as little as possible. Filibuster, blather. But don't let the other person get back into the conversation. Relevance and coherence are at best of marginal importance.

2. Answer a question of you own anyway. Insist that this is the only question worth answering.

3. Challenge the goodwill or the character and parentage, ethics, morals, motives or bona fides of the person asking the question.

4. Refer to some act or achievement of your party which will show you in a good light. Relevance is immaterial. Assert it anyway.

5. Loudly denounce an action of the opposing party in comparison to the excellence of your own. Relevance is immaterial.

6. Never admit a mistake, or that your actions produced unanticipated bad results.

7. At any time accuse your opponents of inconsistent thoughts, or anything potentially compromising. There is no Statute of Limitations. It is always licit to accuse your opponent of things they said in the cradle. 

8. At least once a minute repeat a word, a phrase, anything. Do it with emphasis and profundity. Maybe it will strike a chord. Any chord.

9. Use the tactic of addressing the interviewer. Use their name multiple times. Look them in the eye. Adopt a personal, caring tone. Lean forward like a caring teacher across the interview table. 

10. Use persuasive body language. 

Ms Gillard follows these rules to the letter. So far she has not answered any relevant questions or told us anything we didn't already know She is ahead in the polls.

*It Works*


----------



## Duckman#72 (24 July 2010)

IFocus said:


> Duckman please its politics of course its all spin, Keating ran the same argument against Hewson and the GST the idea being a simple cut through message.




I disagree - the reason it worked for Keating and the reason the "Great Big New Tax" worked for Abbott re the ETS was because the other side could not easily argue how the tax worked. Watching Rudd trying to explain the ETS was similar to watching Hewson trying to explain if GST applied on a birthday cake. 

It might be spin, but the best tricks have truth standing right behind them.

I see Laurie Oakes has even had a go at Wayne Swan for the "Moving Forward" slogan comparing it very poorly with the "It'sTime" slogan of whitlam. 

I perosnally think Julia should have put her own stamp on that campaign. Could'nt you just hear her saying...."It's toime".

Duckman

Duckman


----------



## IFocus (25 July 2010)

> But it would anger business, which says it needs immigration in order to keep up productivity.




Abbott continues his hypocrisy on his core values of not supporting bussness yet again

Not only that he wants a great big new tax on business to pay for his spending,  he abandons work place reform for the benefit of small business and now decides to cut immigration numbers.



> Liberal strategists believe a commitment to cut immigration would be controversial but help the Coalition's election chances.




Freaking hell but is it good policy

Smacks of desperation

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/coalition-to-cut-migrant-numbers-20100724-10pk9.html

Would the real Phoney Tony stand up please thread tile is totally correct.

Expect more of the same as we progress through the election


----------



## IFocus (25 July 2010)

Duckman#72 said:


> I disagree - the reason it worked for Keating and the reason the "Great Big New Tax" worked for Abbott re the ETS was because the other side could not easily argue how the tax worked. Watching Rudd trying to explain the ETS was similar to watching Hewson trying to explain if GST applied on a birthday cake.
> 
> It might be spin, but the best tricks have truth standing right behind them.
> 
> ...




Negative messages seem to have greater resonance and both sides work hard at tearing down each other getting a positive out is quite hard.

I think over all we are displaying our relative political  bias


----------



## Twiddle (25 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> If this is how you interpret the post Twiddle then so be it. I can't help you any more. You have twisted what I have written beyond recognition to the slant that you want it to be read or understood in your eyes. I give up.
> 
> Just for comedy purposes I will try one more time. Ever heard of the word "antonym" ? If you look at the first sentence of what I have written about Tony Abbotts beliefs then correspond it for each and every other word in the second sentence you will find they are the direct opposite.
> 
> If this somehow causes you to go into some mental tangent about bigotry and gay bashing and "my world and beliefs" then ce'st La Vie.




I understand the way your post is constructed, but it is your inference at the end which is telling. The meaning for the way you constructed the lists becomes apparent.

Sure you are outlining what Abbott (supposedly) stands for, but you have done so in a cherry picked way. I could easily write two lists picking different attributes and make them all positive for the Gillard side and all negative for the Abbott side. In doing so, what I place in the lists will reveal my personal biases.

And sure you can say "I am only stating what Abbott himself claims to stand for, not what I am for or against", but with your last statement you make it abundantly clear you share the views of Abbott. If you want to make the case that "This is why we should vote for Abbott!" and you are not anti Atheist or gay, then why include them in the list extolling the virtues of Abbott?


----------



## trainspotter (25 July 2010)

As for post #73, I reiterate ... I give up. Once again you are making assumptions based on your own beliefs and how you interpreted the post into your own oblique view. I have tried to make it as simple as I could for you to understand but the message is just not getting through. Over and out.


----------



## Twiddle (25 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> As for post #73, I reiterate ... I give up. Once again you are making assumptions based on your own beliefs and how you interpreted the post into your own oblique view. I have tried to make it as simple as I could for you to understand but the message is just not getting through. Over and out.




You're right, this is a waste of time. If you want to maintain that I am misunderstanding you, so be it. I think the message of your post is pretty self explanatory.


----------



## drsmith (25 July 2010)

More than ever, both sides are telling outright lies about what they have in mind when in office.


----------



## SmellyTerror (27 July 2010)

Calliope said:


> I think you mean *prerogative*. Your reasoning is as sloppy as your spelling.  You have a long winded way of saying nothing.




Hahahahahahaha!

When you're down to picking out typos, I think you've pretty much lost the debate.

Given the large number of typos I usually commit on ASF, I'm a bit surprised it's taken this long for anyone to be this lame. Congrats, mate, on managing to be the first.

I'll just note that you have not provided any actual point, or even an indication that you've understood what I wrote. My reasoning, however sloppy, seems to have nothing to fear from you. *Might as well debate my spell-checker.* 




Julia said:


> That's just so silly, Smelly Terror.  Fairly obviously in a thread about one contender he/she is going to be compared with his/her opposite number.




Important: I wish there was a "lightheared" font, because most of what I write here is done with a grin.

Ok, let's reconstruct.

1. We've both made the point that Abbott is a poor media / political performer, whatever his policies.

2. Then you say I'm underestimating his appeal to the masses, because people are fed up with Labor spin.

3. I answer that the Libs have pretty awful spin of their own.

4. You suddenly decide I'm making offensive assumptions about your political affiliations.

Now what am I reading wrong here? Because I genuinely have no idea what you're actually objecting to. I thought we were (largely) agreeing!

----
5. We also argue over how people feel about Kev's Long Walk. You seem to miss where I agree that people care, but say that I don't know WHY they care. It's something (murdering leaders and devouring their corpses) that everyone does, and the Libs themselves openly considered pretty damn recently. 

The fact that this is somehow now an ISSUE, is, therefore, SPIN. Which makes it relevant to the subject, yes? The Libs / Abbott / media, have completely fabricated an issue that has NOTHING to do with policy (does it have anything to do with any policy that any party is proposing?), and is therefore 100% undiluted, raw and untreated SPIN. Which you seem to think Abbott doesn't do.

6.  But your response has apparently been to answer that if people care, then obviously it's a perfectly reasonable campaigning point.

...unless Labor does that sort of thing, in which case unspecified "people" don't like it.

Since I can't make any implication about your political affiliation without being roasted, I guess I'll leave the obvious point as a homework assignment.
:


----------



## GumbyLearner (27 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> Hahahahahahaha!
> 
> I'll just note that you have not provided any actual point, or even an indication that you've understood what I wrote. My reasoning, however sloppy, seems to have nothing to fear from you. *Might as well debate my spell-checker.*




It becomes like that around here at times. Very boring, mundane and intellectually insulting at times. So ridiculously one-eyed you would think you were living under Stalinism/Hitlerism.


----------



## SmellyTerror (27 July 2010)

GumbyLearner said:


> So ridiculously one-eyed you would think you were living under Stalinism/Hitlerism.




I am!

....I'm married.


----------



## Calliope (27 July 2010)

SmellyTerror said:


> When you're down to picking out typos, I think you've pretty much lost the debate.




What debate? Your long-winded rants are not debates.


----------



## Twiddle (27 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> As for post #73, I reiterate ... I give up. Once again you are making assumptions based on your own beliefs and how you interpreted the post into your own oblique view. I have tried to make it as simple as I could for you to understand but the message is just not getting through. Over and out.




Trainspotter.

Looking through this thread again I have realised I probably did get the wrong end of the stick.

Apologies.


----------



## trainspotter (27 July 2010)

Twiddle said:


> Trainspotter.
> 
> Looking through this thread again I have realised I probably did get the wrong end of the stick.
> 
> Apologies.




No apologies necessary Twiddle.  ... all good here. You are entitled to your opinion as much as anyone else. I just didn't want it to escalate into something it was never meant to be.  Too easy !


----------



## Timmy (27 July 2010)

Drumroll ....


----------



## Twiddle (27 July 2010)

Haha


----------



## trainspotter (27 July 2010)

HEY !! ....... I resemble that image Timmy !


----------



## Timmy (27 July 2010)

trainspotter said:


> HEY !! ....... I resemble that image Timmy !




Me too ........ LOL

(ps. stolen from your earlier post today).


----------



## gav (27 July 2010)

To understand the second video, you need to watch this first.  Old Spice new commercial:

 


Tony Abbott - Old Spice parody:


----------



## Timmy (2 August 2010)

This is interesting.  
Abbott has been reported as making comments offensive to the disabled.  Probably a case of Abbott's mouth going off before brain in gear (a not unusual occurrence, he even admits to it being a problem).

I am sure he didn't mean to be offensive, and he has apologised.

Also wanted to compare (slightly) different reports:

In The Age Abbott's offensive remarks were reported:


> TONY Abbott has been forced to apologise after the government quickly seized on a comment as offensive to handicapped people.



http://www.theage.com.au/federal-election/abbott-slips-up-while-decrying-waffle-20100801-111h4.html

In The Sydney Morning Herald the remarks were reported thus:


> Tony Abbott apologised last night after offending the disabled by describing as ''waffle'' parliamentary statements on cinema access.



http://www.smh.com.au/federal-election/abbott-should-try-earmuffs-for-a-day-20100801-111f8.html

The Australian has gone with "disabled":


> TONY Abbott has outraged disability groups ....
> David Brant, a spokesman for the Australian Federation of Disability Organisations said it was a "Freudian slip that exposes a tunnel-visioned view of society".



http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...h-waffley-remark/story-fn59niix-1225899735825

Regardless of whether the term used is 'handicapped' or 'disabled' (I think disabled is the term more commonly used?), good that Abbott apologised.


----------



## Calliope (2 August 2010)

Timmy said:


> Regardless of whether the term used is 'handicapped' or 'disabled' (I think disabled is the term more commonly used?), good that Abbott apologised.




The ABC will love this one and it will certainly loom large on Labor's Cheat Sheet. Bill Shorten has kicked it off.


----------



## Timmy (2 August 2010)

Calliope said:


> The ABC will love this one




I would think the ABC will probably give it a go ...  I wonder if it will get a mention from Alan Jones or any other of the talkback chaps?


----------

