This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

2013 Federal Election: 7 September 2013

Jump to new
sails said:
It's on twitter. If true, it is hard to believe the dishonest tricks and lies used by the left:
Click to expand...
Andrew Bolt's gone as far as claiming to have seen the original screenshot.

Hopefully he's too sensible to have been duped.
 
sydboy007 said:
,,, my projection is Abbott will be remembered as the GW Bush Jr of Australian PMs
Click to expand...

That my friend, would indicate you've taken no notice of our absent friend 'W' (Dubbya), are taking no notice of Abbott, or both.

W was patently unqualified from day one. He was a put-up job by the machine because they saw him (correctly, it seems) as a man whom the average American Joe could identify with. A communicator. Incredible, but I think that's true.

To that extent, Rudd would be a better comparison to 'W'. Rudd is more intellectual certainly, but the only characteristic Rudd offers to even his direct supporters is that he's a good campaigner.

Nobody, repeat NOBODY, actually believes Rudd is a capable leader. Except Rudd.

Abbott at least is his own man. Not a talking sock-puppet, nor a actor/entertainer.

I'm not expecting to like his politics.

But if the world turns ugly, I'd much rather see Abbott in the big chair than any leader the Labor party has had to offer since Keating.
 

Is it too much to ask that comments are confined to issues with the facts of what I've said, rather than issue that I've said it or that I criticise 1 side more than the other? I'm not making up the criticisms, and no one has come out and said I'm positing factually incorrect data.

I've got no issue with someone saying Syd, I don't think your right about X, because I see it this way....

That kind of response adds value to the discussion.

From my point of view what Calliope does really adds no value. I'm may not agree that often with say Mr Burns or Dr Smith, or others on this forum, but at least I can understand where they're coming from because they generally explain themselves, and sometimes my view does change a bit as it did in teh Superannuation discussion a few month back.

At least I put a fair amount of effort and research into what I post.

- - - Updated - - -

sails said:
It's on twitter. If true, it is hard to believe the dishonest tricks and lies used by the left:


View attachment 54051

https://twitter.com/captdudd/status/371772191626362880/photo/1
Click to expand...

Imbeciles. In this day and age of instant gotcha.

They deserve the lambasting they get.
 
Purple XS2 said:
W was patently unqualified from day one. He was a put-up job by the machine because they saw him (correctly, it seems) as a man whom the average American Joe could identify with. A communicator. Incredible, but I think that's true.
Click to expand...
W's base was the Christian right, far right and big business and he acknowledged as much. 911 saved his presidency by transforming him into a "war president". Abbott is no doubt more competent (not a high hurdle) but his constituency is essentially the same, there are definite parallels between them. Unlike Abbott though, Bush could actually deliver a message that did not involve the use of "uh" or "but" in every sentence or feel it a necessary to repeat punch lines at least twice in every sound bite.

Abbott will creep over the line based on Labor mismanagement of the economy and its own leadership, not due to his inspiring ideas or speeches. Turnbull would be a far better leader but is just to centrist for a front bench whose idol is Howard and his policy legacy. Abbott is a Howard-lite figure with similar views to his mentor but he lacks the policy courage or public speaking/debating skills of his hero. Abbott is a leader of the past, a regression to the Howard era of Liberal politics where the BCA crafted policy, refugees were used as political fodder and financial management was the highest aspiration and calling of government.
 
sydboy007 said:
I'm not making up the criticisms, and no one has come out and said I'm positing factually incorrect data.
Click to expand...

I've no idea...it's just boring.

From my point of view what Calliope does really adds no value.
Click to expand...

No value to a leftie. My vote on 7 September will add value in kicking that obnoxious creep Peter Slipper out on his ear. I guess he will be sadly missed by his friends in Oxford Street.

At least I put a fair amount of effort and research into what I post.
Click to expand...

You poor ole thing...you are not getting the appreciation you deserve.
 
Something neither party will want to talk about - thanks to Macrobusiness highlighting the work of Brian Toohey

Budget support for retirement incomes dwarfs all other fiscal problems, yet there is bipartisan support for pretending nothing needs to change. Without serious reform, an ageing population will impose a crippling burden on a proportionally smaller workforce. Conservative estimates put the combined cost of the age pension and the superannuation tax concessions at more than $100 billion a year by 2019-20 and almost $500 billion over the next four years.

In the Financial Review on Thursday, David Bassanese nominated Peter Costello’s removal of tax on super after age 60 as the worst policy blunder of the past decade or so (“The pick of the policy blunders”, August 22). Unhappily, the then Treasury head, Ken Henry, called it one of his department’s best policy proposals. Now Henry says taxes must go up to cope with rising costs…

Although not on Bassanese’s list, Howard’s introduction of the Commonwealth Seniors Health Card was another blunder. It lets people over 65 with a tax-free income of more than $500,000 receive prescription drugs for one sixth of the price for minimum wage earners. Abbott might agree to tighter means tests, but will be reluctant to scrap the card completely…
 
My missus and I have just been going through our ballot papers before casting our postal vote.
With 36 political parties to choose from, I’m finding it a pretty daunting task to choose between them. So far I’ve narrowed it down to three possibilities....

* The Help End Marijuana Prohibition Party
* The Sex Party
* The Pirate Party

Can somebody help me out here – which one of these three should get my vote?
 
noco said:
Please Rudney Rude, cut, cut, cut out the lies

The majority are awake up to you.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/rudds_campaign_of_lies/
Click to expand...

One of the reasons ALP Premier Anna Bligh copped a wipeout in the Queensland election was that like Rudd, she had little but a track record of incompetence and economic mismanagement to bring to the election campaign. So in desperation she started making up lies in an attempt to discredit Campbell Newman. The public saw straight through her blatant dishonesty, and she went down in a landslide defeat.

I didn’t think Rudd would be dumb enough to copy Bligh’s failed tactics, but he’s proven me wrong.
 

The hatred for Howard and Costello among the left is almost palpable. Gillard and Rudd on the other hand apparently never made any blunders. It seems to be a class war thing.
 
Bill Shortens rant on Q and A about how all Labors woes are the fault of the media was very well done, except he forgot the mention that the media wouldn't be so critical if Labor weren't so incredibly unworthy of Governing.
 
Calliope said:
The hatred for Howard and Costello among the left is almost palpable. Gillard and Rudd on the other hand apparently never made any blunders. It seems to be a class war thing.
Click to expand...

I see it this way Calliope

Gillard is gone - so what benefit is there in criticising her?

Rudd is pretty much gone - Govt is in care taker mode so he can't do anything till after the election and well if you'd like to bet he'll still PM after the election I'll take you on - so seems no point in criticising him as he's got no relevance to the future.

Abbott is most likely going to be the next PM, so out of the 3 he's the only one who will have the power to enact their policies.

So why waste my time criticising Rudd or Gillard, when maybe criticising Abbott might help to change it for the better?

Hopefully you noticed I started that post with "Something neither party will want to talk about" ie I was criticising Labor AND the Coalition.

Once again all you've done is criticise me for saying something about Abbott and the Coalition, but you don't seem to think the facts behind what I'm saying is wrong. I'm happy to debate you on your choice of Abbotts policies. maybe pick the one that most makes you want to vote for him and let the discussion start.

- - - Updated - - -

My gosh, News corp the most balanced reporting of the election.
 

Attachments

  • news corp.JPG
    59.4 KB · Views: 21
sydboy007 said:
So why waste my time criticising the past, when maybe criticising the future might help to change it for the better?
Click to expand...

Exactly. So why keep carping on about Howard and Costello?

Criticise the future???

Perhaps you could educate yourself by reading this article on CLEANING UP LABOR'S MESS in the hated Murdoch press.


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...g-up-labors-mess/story-fn8v83qk-1226704567737
 
Lol Sydboy. what a joke.

It's like the CNNNN quote. We report...you believe!
 
MrBurns said:
Bill Shortens rant on Q and A about how all Labors woes are the fault of the media was very well done, except he forgot the mention that the media wouldn't be so critical if Labor weren't so incredibly unworthy of Governing.
Click to expand...
Last night's Media Watch was the warm up act for the main theme of Q&A. Even Janet Albrechtsen copped it for stating essentially what Kevin's own colleagues have said about him in the past and will no doubt revisit after Labor's election loss.


The ABC culture is clearly having difficulties with the questioning of their messiah's character. It needs to remember that unlike Fairfax and Newscorp, it is publically funded.

http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transcripts/s3834127.htm

As for Q&A, Kelly O'dwyer was impressive. It would have been a very long episode for Bill Shorten. His body language and frustration throughout the show was obvious. Near the end of the show, he mentioned the prospect of Coalition control of the Senate. That's Labor's battlefront now.

http://www.abc.net.au/tv/qanda/txt/s3818772.htm
 
drsmith said:
Sportsbet though still has Labor going backwards. Odds are now $1.06/$9.50 in favour of the Coalition and the handicap also continues to rise, now at 20.5 seats.
Click to expand...
Now $1.04/$10.00 with the handicap at 21.5 seats.
 
Anyone had a serious look at Clive Palmers Australian Party?
I agree with some of his policies I have seen, but haven't really looked much deeper for any fruit cake hidden beneath.
 
I just watched part of a sickening interview of Rudd on Ch 7 by Rudd-lover Mark Riley. Riley asked him if he was concerned about losing his seat. This was the bullsh!t reply:

"You know something Mark, I'm not faintly concerned about what happens to me. I am only concerned about what happens to Australia."

With the usual Rudd hyperbole he also said that Abbott was going to waste billions on PPL to millionaire women.

The man is a psychopathic liar, i.e. he actually believes his own lies.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Market response to the Election outcome
2 3 4
Replies
67
Views
9K
Telamelo
T
The Napthine government - On the way out?
Replies
4
Views
3K
drsmith
Superannuation pain must extend to politicians
Replies
14
Views
6K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...