The Abbott Government

[explod]

But that was not an attack on Gillards father.

Bill Shorten will hide behind other people like Mathieson and others from the Fabian Society, GET UP and the radical students union.......He makes the 'bullets' but is too much of a coward to fire them himself.

No but an attack on Gillard.

What a dirty way to attack anyone. But dumb is the description which fits, just like the following irrelevancies of your post.

 

[sptrawler]

And it's all hypocritical anyway after Abbott bought Gillard's late father into politics with the "died of shame" comment.

Are you sure it was Abbott, who made that statement, one must be a bit carefull writing aspertions.

 

[explod]

Are you sure it was Abbott, who made that statement, one must be a bit carefull writing aspertions.

Yes, think it was that chock-a-jock Jones on Sydney radio.

 

[SirRumpole]

Are you sure it was Abbott, who made that statement, one must be a bit carefull writing aspertions.

Alan Jones originally made the comment and Abbott repeated it in Parliament.

 

[bellenuit]

Alan Jones originally made the comment and Abbott repeated it in Parliament.

Not quite correct....

Jones said, shortly after Gillard's father died: "your father would have died of shame if...." and finished the sentence with something that Gillard had done, which I cannot at this moment recollect. There was a major and perhaps deserved outcry over this.

A few weeks later, in parliament, when speaking about something I also cannot quite recollect, perhaps the carbon tax lie, Abbott said: "you should die of shame because.... ". There was no reference to Gillard's father, but the usual crowd from the left tried to suggest that using the expression "died of shame" was a subtle way of repeating what Jones said, without quite saying it. Abbott denied that was his intention and said it was a common expression of his. A search of his speeches in and outside parliament over the previous year showed that it was quite common for him to use that expression and he had in fact said it in relation to the exact same issue several times in the months before Gillard's father died.

 

[Julia]

Not quite correct....

Jones said, shortly after Gillard's father died: "your father would have died of shame if...." and finished the sentence with something that Gillard had done, which I cannot at this moment recollect. There was a major and perhaps deserved outcry over this.

A few weeks later, in parliament, when speaking about something I also cannot quite recollect, perhaps the carbon tax lie, Abbott said: "you should die of shame because.... ". There was no reference to Gillard's father, but the usual crowd from the left tried to suggest that using the expression "died of shame" was a subtle way of repeating what Jones said, without quite saying it. Abbott denied that was his intention and said it was a common expression of his. A search of his speeches in and outside parliament over the previous year showed that it was quite common for him to use that expression and he had in fact said it in relation to the exact same issue several times in the months before Gillard's father died.

The above is yet another example of how the media ignores the most important aspects of what they should be reporting and investigating, in favour of petty, stupid, utterly irrelevant side issues.

Why any media would even bother to report anything said by Tim Mathieson, a person whose only relevance at any stage was that he had the dubious distinction of being the partner of the then Prime Minister, is absolutely beyond me. It's a perfect example of what our media has become. Shame on them.
Perhaps consider that no one needs to consume this rubbish. By boycotting such media organisations, there might be a faint chance that they will think twice about their ill considered reporting.

 

[dutchie]

The above is yet another example of how the media ignores the most important aspects of what they should be reporting and investigating, in favour of petty, stupid, utterly irrelevant side issues.

Why any media would even bother to report anything said by Tim Mathieson, a person whose only relevance at any stage was that he had the dubious distinction of being the partner of the then Prime Minister, is absolutely beyond me. It's a perfect example of what our media has become. Shame on them.
Perhaps consider that no one needs to consume this rubbish. By boycotting such media organisations, there might be a faint chance that they will think twice about their ill considered reporting.

I agree Julia.

It is so much easier to write about this sort of rubbish than it is to write something constructive (for or against a policy) about the real issues. The media would actually have to use their brains!!!

The media is deadset lazy and the electorate lets them get away with it.

 

[noco]

Not quite correct....

Jones said, shortly after Gillard's father died: "your father would have died of shame if...." and finished the sentence with something that Gillard had done, which I cannot at this moment recollect. There was a major and perhaps deserved outcry over this.

A few weeks later, in parliament, when speaking about something I also cannot quite recollect, perhaps the carbon tax lie, Abbott said: "you should die of shame because.... ". There was no reference to Gillard's father, but the usual crowd from the left tried to suggest that using the expression "died of shame" was a subtle way of repeating what Jones said, without quite saying it. Abbott denied that was his intention and said it was a common expression of his. A search of his speeches in and outside parliament over the previous year showed that it was quite common for him to use that expression and he had in fact said it in relation to the exact same issue several times in the months before Gillard's father died.

Yes bellenuit, you correct 100%......but of course there are some people in this world who will always exaggerate the story and twist things around to suit themselves.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story if you can gain some points from it.

 

[SirRumpole]

Not quite correct....

Jones said, shortly after Gillard's father died: "your father would have died of shame if...." and finished the sentence with something that Gillard had done, which I cannot at this moment recollect. There was a major and perhaps deserved outcry over this.

A few weeks later, in parliament, when speaking about something I also cannot quite recollect, perhaps the carbon tax lie, Abbott said: "you should die of shame because.... ". There was no reference to Gillard's father, but the usual crowd from the left tried to suggest that using the expression "died of shame" was a subtle way of repeating what Jones said, without quite saying it. Abbott denied that was his intention and said it was a common expression of his. A search of his speeches in and outside parliament over the previous year showed that it was quite common for him to use that expression and he had in fact said it in relation to the exact same issue several times in the months before Gillard's father died.

A clumsy attempt by Abbott to paper over a very tacky comment. Abbott was aware of Jones' comment, and deliberately choose to repeat it in a different context. People can delude themselves that he meant something else if they want to, but to me it shows that Abbott has a very nasty streak.

 

[wayneL]

A clumsy attempt by Abbott to paper over a very tacky comment. Abbott was aware of Jones' comment, and deliberately choose to repeat it in a different context. People can delude themselves that he meant something else if they want to, but to me it shows that Abbott has a very nasty streak.

Clumsy?

This comment of yours rather qualifies as clumsy Horace. We can never know whether Tones intentionally referenced Jone's remark. 'Died of shame' is common English idiom and one should not be ssurprised if the expression turned up in any conversation. To definitively assign such malice is disingenuous at best.

The nasty streak exposed, is actually your own.

This is yet another example of wayneL's Law[1].


[1] The impossibility of objectivity in leftist thought. waynel PhD et al 2013.

 

[noco]

A clumsy attempt by Abbott to paper over a very tacky comment. Abbott was aware of Jones' comment, and deliberately choose to repeat it in a different context. People can delude themselves that he meant something else if they want to, but to me it shows that Abbott has a very nasty streak.

And of course your opinion is the right one......Hmmmmmmmm comrade SHY will love you for it.

 

[SirRumpole]

We can never know whether Tones intentionally referenced Jone's remark.

We can never know if Shorten instigated the revelations over Abbott's daughter's scholarship, but the Right continually contend that he did.

What goes around comes around.

noco:
.but of course there are some people in this world who will always exaggerate the story and twist things around to suit themselves.
Never let the truth get in the way of a good story if you can gain some points from it.

Agreed, but in a different context.

 

[wayneL]

We can never know if Shorten instigated the revelations over Abbott's daughter's scholarship, but the Right continually contend that he did.

What goes around comes around.

You are right, Shorten is copping this because of his and the Labor Party's previous (and current) conduct.

Let's face it, all politicians are liars; but it doesn't mean you have to be also.

 

[SirRumpole]

You are right, Shorten is copping this because of his and the Labor Party's previous (and current) conduct.

Let's face it, all politicians are liars; but it doesn't mean you have to be also.

You should do some research into the difference between lying and opinion.

If you say "we will never know if Abbott deliberately repeated Jones's comment", then it can't be a lie to express the opinion that he did because the contrary cannot be proven. The evidence is that he knew of Jones' statement and made a similar statement soon after. People can either believe he intended a similar message to Jones or that he didn't.

 

[Knobby22]

Clumsy?

This comment of yours rather qualifies as clumsy Horace. We can never know whether Tones intentionally referenced Jone's remark. 'Died of shame' is common English idiom and one should not be ssurprised if the expression turned up in any conversation. To definitively assign such malice is disingenuous at best.

The nasty streak exposed, is actually your own.

This is yet another example of wayneL's Law[1].


[1] The impossibility of objectivity in leftist thought. waynel PhD et al 2013.

Lol. It was in the media that day and in the news the previous night and your mate "Tone" (didn't know you knew each other) deliberately referenced it.

This is yet another example of changing history to suit the political aim and retain power or as I call it George Orwell's political definition of truth law.

"In "Minitrue", we have a department called the Records of Department. This is where we change history when something does not seem right, when event has happened, that should not have, or when a person "doublethinks". (Doublethinking is when you have a thought that goes against the Party). We do this so our Party looks good and we do not want people talking about what has happened in the past because we want the past to look good and have a positive impact that goes along with the Party's standards. Other people would like to say that we are a ministry that lies, but we that is not the case." - George Orwell

 

[sptrawler]

I met up with my mother over the weekend, she was up from the country.

Well she initially couldn't wait to tell me that the pills and doctor visits were going to cost here thousands of dollars. Also the government were going to reduce her pension. I told her calm down nothing was through parliament yet and asked her if she knew there were waivers for people with an ongoing medical condition.

What became obvious over the weekend was the government and the media, have done an appauling job of explaing the detail of the budget. It would be easy to blame the government, however the mass media has only reported in a manner that miss informs and causes panic.

The government probably needs to mount an advertising campaign to explain accurately, the budget content and its effect. Funny the tax payer, would have to pay to find out what the press should be printing, as a matter of course.

 

[Julia]

The government probably needs to mount an advertising campaign to explain accurately, the budget content and its effect. Funny the tax payer, would have to pay to find out what the press should be printing, as a matter of course.

There have been some clear, properly explanatory articles in "The Australian" but agree that the misinformation put about by Fairfax in particular, and of course, Labor, has been spectacularly successful in scaring anyone who takes it at face value.

An advertising campaign is probably a good idea but what an indictment on the communication powers of the government that it should be necessary.

 

[Calliope]

The 'hate Abbott" campaign is plumbing ridiculous depths. The absurd Winkgate nonsense is a prime example, but the biggest absurdity was that Abbott felt the need to apologise, when he was so obviously set up by Faine and a sexline worker who is a Labor activist.

The smart thing for Abbott to have done was to tell the Labor/Green/Feminist twitterati to go to hell. The same applies to the "die of shame" remark. No explanation or apology will stop the Abbott haters from raising it, again and again, for their own grubby purposes.

His simple answer is "if you don't like it, lump it". It is when they get an apology out of him that they win, and it spurs them on to more nastiness, directed at him and his family.

 

[Knobby22]

I told her calm down nothing was through parliament yet and asked her if she knew there were waivers for people with an ongoing medical condition.

.

That's not correct though sptrawler. Hockey made a mistake on Q&A. in the Budget people with a number of serious ongoing medical conditions are allowed one free doctor's visit per year as an overview to the various conditions.

All other visits will be charged. Anyway, as you said it's not through Parliament yet, I'm sure that will be modified before then.

I heard the leader of the AMA state that he was amazed that Hockey hadn't read his own budget (on the ABC of course, it won't be mentioned in The Australian). As a general principle, the AMA aren't against charging the fee by the way.

 

[wayneL]

Lol. It was in the media that day and in the news the previous night and your mate "Tone" (didn't know you knew each other) deliberately referenced it.

Tones and I are not mates Knobby. As often stated on this forum, I am not a conservative, I am a classical liberal/libertarian. As such, the Liberal party is not a good fit for me, it's just that Labor are in quantum measure, even less so.

So please, enough of the argumentative fallacy.

Fwiw, Tone's comment was fair game (though AJs was in poor taste) IMO.

This is yet another example of changing history to suit the political aim and retain power or as I call it George Orwell's political definition of truth law.

"In "Minitrue", we have a department called the Records of Department. This is where we change history when something does not seem right, when event has happened, that should not have, or when a person "doublethinks". (Doublethinking is when you have a thought that goes against the Party). We do this so our Party looks good and we do not want people talking about what has happened in the past because we want the past to look good and have a positive impact that goes along with the Party's standards. Other people would like to say that we are a ministry that lies, but we that is not the case." - George Orwell

The old switcheroo eh? Quoting Labor/Fabian MO and assigning it to the conservatives... Oh my, your fallaciousness knows know bounds (and your red knickers are showing).