Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,719
- Reactions
- 10,371
Agree Burnsie,
Some men such as the owner of the Line, took the boat, he was a pom.
gg
Australia - No Place For Real Men
- Thread starter Garpal Gumnut
- Start date
Agree Burnsie,
Some men such as the owner of the Line, took the boat, he was a pom.
gg
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Indeed....
- Joined
- 12 December 2005
- Posts
- 544
- Reactions
- 0
I raise my glass to the real men and women who sacrificed their lives for others, especially their children, on that night.
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,719
- Reactions
- 10,371
Indeed.
Thanks Burnsie,
Ismay was not a Real Man.
Perhaps a Real man can be determined better by exclusion, that which is not a Real Man, than inclusion.
If you should ever visit Belfast a dreadful post-industrial Irish or British city depending on your godbothering, in which there is an interesting "Titanic Exhibition " well worth seeing. In the Harland and Wolff docks, where the Titanic was built.
gg
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
Ismay had the rest of his life to feel the humiliation of what he did, I could almost guarantee by the end of it he realised what a real man was, and also realised he wasn't a real man's boot lace.
Julia
In Memoriam
- Joined
- 10 May 2005
- Posts
- 16,986
- Reactions
- 1,973
+1. Thanks, kennas.
OK, understood.
He has also engaged in much charity work as a volunteer, something that is rarely reported.
Agree. I was once irritated by Doug Cameron but have come to realise that he is a very genuine person.
John Faulkner is highly intelligent, possessed of immense political nous, and much underrated by his colleagues imo. If he were leading the ALP instead of the raucous fishwife, I could even consider voting for them.
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,719
- Reactions
- 10,371
An example of a real man is a member of his local Country Fire Brigade for many years, leaves his paid job when there are fires, exposes himself to danger for a higher cause, and just gets on with life after the danger is over.
gg
gg
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
+1 unless you see those fires close up you cant appreciate the danger.
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,719
- Reactions
- 10,371
Real farming men and women love their land and associated wildlife.
They apply for burning permits, which are refused for political reason.
They remain law abiding even when knocked back by governments with a political rather than an ecological or economic agenda.
They are not afraid to speak their mind and start off again.
from The Australian.
gg
They apply for burning permits, which are refused for political reason.
They remain law abiding even when knocked back by governments with a political rather than an ecological or economic agenda.
They are not afraid to speak their mind and start off again.
from The Australian.
gg
- Joined
- 6 September 2008
- Posts
- 7,676
- Reactions
- 68
- Joined
- 30 January 2013
- Posts
- 11
- Reactions
- 0
Calling a spade a spade - *that* sounds pretty academic to me. A bloke who knows how to talk and think for himself is still perfectly suited to Australian politics. I never heard Howard, Hawke or Keating complain - and Howard was around well and truly in the time of social media.
Yahoo answers, mate. We might not all be into that sort of thing, but it's easy to tell the difference if you look it up. http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080130134113AAQvf2b
If you ask me they attack TA as being a speedo-wearing religious twit. Of course he isn't one, is he - but that's politics mate! Sure, we can cry about it - it's a sad, sad thing. But that's not going to change it. Putting up your views despite the slurs - and yes, selling your personality - is what politics is all about. Like TA says himself: it's about trust. I personally don't think blokes are being vilified by the ALP attacking Tony where he's clearly weakest - in looking like an out-of-date dinosaur. Howard was no sissy little girl and he was around well and truly into the social media era. Tony's image problem hasn't got anything to do with how blokey he is, unless you're saying being (or being made to, I should say) look stupid is 'blokey'.
Yeap. But the same is true of both sides. You don't see much of the wives at all though, and showing your femine side through parading your wife around might backfire further. In general, if you're in politics you know it's a messy business, and it's no surprise partners often keep out of it.
And further on that, it sounds like 'victim' talk to me. I don't think. Howard was a bloke's bloke as far as I can remember. So was Hawke. Nick Greiner was moved to tears about the olympics, as was the former - so you can 'mix it up' a bit for the gallery, sure. But TA isn't getting hung out for being a bloke. I don't know who this 'left ' is who's marginalising everyone (that sounds left itself to me!), but that sounds like 'victim talk'. I don't think it's like "a bloke" to bleating about it, whoever they were. If Abbot can't fight his own fights and come out on top he's got no chops as a polly - end of story. The game is the game in democracy, and sadly (or happily, however you like to see it) it's public opinion that matters. And if Howard could do it (be 'a bloke' and a PM)... and Keating and Hawke and many more, Abbott should be able to as well. Howard was doing when social media was alive and kicking too.
But fair's fair. I'll reserve judgement. Has Tony Abbott complained about getting rough treatment like this? I'm not sure he has, but am keen to hear. Honestly, I'm not sure what the point is here, and still scratching my head to find out. The idea that the a bunch of BLF hefties and union king-pins are trying to make Abbott into a 'bloke' to fell him seems pretty laughable to me.
Still confused. It sounds to me like you're either saying that TA's being made out to be stupid by 'over' educated types (a pretty dicey critism, because on the flipside you seem to imply conservatives are stupid!) Or, you're saying that being unable talk-the-talk, online or in parliment, is 'blokey' - again, seeming to say that being blokey or conservative means being dumb. Really not sure where you're at here, so keen to understand.
- Joined
- 30 January 2013
- Posts
- 11
- Reactions
- 0
Sorry about the short and sharp reply. A retype job thanks to this damn computer.
Now *that* sounds academic to me. Maybe you could show us all how your TA represents the everyday bloke, 'cause I'm struggling with that. If you ask me ALP are attacking TA where he's weakest - in looking like a religious dinosaur in budgy smugglers. Of course, he isn't this mate, but that's how politics works. To be a good polly, you have to sell your ideas and - yes, sadly - sell your personality. I don't accept that someone ever man's masculinity is being threatened because Tony's is. Howard was no cry-baby, and he lasted a long time in the era of social media.
To be honest mate, I'm finding myself decoding your academic speak. It sounds like you're saying that an 'academic left' (educated types - 'on the left') are making some 'socially driven' (democratically active) 'political class' (people interested in people's affairs group) wants change for change's sake.
Well, isn't the left by definition about change? If you're on the left all the time, you're by definition, always about change. So what's your point? So educated types are forming some sort of democratic lobby for changes they want. What's new? But on the flip side, are you saying uneducated people 'on the right' aren't campaigning to oppose change? This all sounds like a whole lot of not much so far so it would help me out to hear you clear that up.
Yeap, I think you're just saying that we should lift political debate, as they say. That means talking about something other than personality and talking about issues... but you're talking about personality again.
Yahoo answers, mate. We might not be into that sort of thing but it's not hard to look it up.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080130134113AAQvf2b
I don't know what else to say here. But take it up with the ALP at their next meeting. You might be the only voice among a bunch of BLF blokes telling them that they shouldn't pick on poor Tony for being too manly. You should also tell them not to be such an effete political class.
For that to hold any water they'd really need to have constituencies of swing voters that are only women - and then, risk marginalising the men in other electorates.
So, I reckon every ALP voting bloke in the country probably disagrees with you there. In fact, many conservatives will too. And I know I sure do. If being a bloke means being like Tony Abbott - not able to sell his ideas convincingly or sell his own party's policies or deliver speeches successfully (and not look like a joke) - you must really hate blokes! Howard was as blokey (fatherly even) as they come, and I don't remember him suffering from looking so out-datedly religious (even though he was) or so stupid in public (trackies looked better than speedos, somehow, didn't they!) And he wouldn't get drawn into political debates that he didn't think meant anything. Sure, he was voted out after a long run, but Abbott's image has always been a joke and unless you've got a very screwed up idea of 'masculine image', his gifts to the ALP mud-slingers are purely voluntary.
Pollies are wise to keep their better halves out of their mucky jobs in case their publicity ideas backfire.
To sum up, if I read you right, you're saying that Tony Abbott is an 'everyman', and the ALP are casting this as a bad thing? If that's the case, many blokes who believe that will vote for him. So isn't that the "Julia's a girl" sympathy vote in reverse? Mate, I didn't see Howard crying, and he was in power well and truly into the internet era. Tony is getting hit by the ALP where it hurts - because he's easy to cast as a religious dinosaur. It's just muck raking, but it's nothing new. The solution is focusing on real issues and not personality and personal traits. But here's this post... focusing back on personal issues and missing the mark in the process. I'd be guilty of being a hypocrite unless I read your reply, of course. But I'd be equally hypocritical to continue trying to understand your point of view if you can't prove the ALP are casting 'blokes' as being bad. Given their base, that sounds like polywaffle to me.
Now *that* sounds academic to me. Maybe you could show us all how your TA represents the everyday bloke, 'cause I'm struggling with that. If you ask me ALP are attacking TA where he's weakest - in looking like a religious dinosaur in budgy smugglers. Of course, he isn't this mate, but that's how politics works. To be a good polly, you have to sell your ideas and - yes, sadly - sell your personality. I don't accept that someone ever man's masculinity is being threatened because Tony's is. Howard was no cry-baby, and he lasted a long time in the era of social media.
To be honest mate, I'm finding myself decoding your academic speak. It sounds like you're saying that an 'academic left' (educated types - 'on the left') are making some 'socially driven' (democratically active) 'political class' (people interested in people's affairs group) wants change for change's sake.
Well, isn't the left by definition about change? If you're on the left all the time, you're by definition, always about change. So what's your point? So educated types are forming some sort of democratic lobby for changes they want. What's new? But on the flip side, are you saying uneducated people 'on the right' aren't campaigning to oppose change? This all sounds like a whole lot of not much so far so it would help me out to hear you clear that up.
Yeap, I think you're just saying that we should lift political debate, as they say. That means talking about something other than personality and talking about issues... but you're talking about personality again.
Yahoo answers, mate. We might not be into that sort of thing but it's not hard to look it up.
http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20080130134113AAQvf2b
I don't know what else to say here. But take it up with the ALP at their next meeting. You might be the only voice among a bunch of BLF blokes telling them that they shouldn't pick on poor Tony for being too manly. You should also tell them not to be such an effete political class.
For that to hold any water they'd really need to have constituencies of swing voters that are only women - and then, risk marginalising the men in other electorates.
So, I reckon every ALP voting bloke in the country probably disagrees with you there. In fact, many conservatives will too. And I know I sure do. If being a bloke means being like Tony Abbott - not able to sell his ideas convincingly or sell his own party's policies or deliver speeches successfully (and not look like a joke) - you must really hate blokes! Howard was as blokey (fatherly even) as they come, and I don't remember him suffering from looking so out-datedly religious (even though he was) or so stupid in public (trackies looked better than speedos, somehow, didn't they!) And he wouldn't get drawn into political debates that he didn't think meant anything. Sure, he was voted out after a long run, but Abbott's image has always been a joke and unless you've got a very screwed up idea of 'masculine image', his gifts to the ALP mud-slingers are purely voluntary.
Pollies are wise to keep their better halves out of their mucky jobs in case their publicity ideas backfire.
To sum up, if I read you right, you're saying that Tony Abbott is an 'everyman', and the ALP are casting this as a bad thing? If that's the case, many blokes who believe that will vote for him. So isn't that the "Julia's a girl" sympathy vote in reverse? Mate, I didn't see Howard crying, and he was in power well and truly into the internet era. Tony is getting hit by the ALP where it hurts - because he's easy to cast as a religious dinosaur. It's just muck raking, but it's nothing new. The solution is focusing on real issues and not personality and personal traits. But here's this post... focusing back on personal issues and missing the mark in the process. I'd be guilty of being a hypocrite unless I read your reply, of course. But I'd be equally hypocritical to continue trying to understand your point of view if you can't prove the ALP are casting 'blokes' as being bad. Given their base, that sounds like polywaffle to me.