Prime Minister Poll

[U2Tigers]

Haha @ bias. You're riddled with it Livers. Abbott has now said he was referring to his own daughters by the statement. Looking forward to you telling us how 11 years as a minister during Howard's reign qualified him for comments about his daughters.

One could argue your riddled with bias yourself.

just like myself and others.

We all have our beliefs.

 

[Liverpool]

Haha @ bias. You're riddled with it Livers. Abbott has now said he was referring to his own daughters by the statement. Looking forward to you telling us how 11 years as a minister during Howard's reign qualified him for comments about his daughters.

So professional AND personal experience more than Gillard

Seems like he was on the money then with his comments, if you ask me...

 

[Rosy]

One could argue your riddled with bias yourself.

Livers already did argue that. Isn't it cold trolling the forum in his shadow? He must walk so much taller with you riding shot gun for him. :hihi

 

[AngryAnt]

One could argue your riddled with bias yourself.

Livers can and does argue this - it's a common ploy of his. Rosy just defends herself. Livers tends to throw round words like "biased" and "emotional" at people who have a different opinion. "Head in the sand" = "I disagree with you" in Liverpool speak.

Abbott's given a mealy mouthed apology and now claims he was talking about his daughters. I wonder when he'll wheel out the "I'm a nice guy and I can prove it because I have a family" next time. The guy should pick one cover story and stick to it.

 

[AngryAnt]

So professional AND personal experience more than Gillard

Seems like he was on the money then with his comments, if you ask me...

The saddest thing about this is that you seem to think it's perfectly OK to argue from two opposing positions in the space of two posts and still think you retain a shred of credibility.

Actually less sad than funny.

 

[U2Tigers]

Livers already did argue that. Isn't it cold trolling the forum in his shadow? He must walk so much taller with you riding shot gun for him. :hihi

hes definately good enough to look after himself, he actually presents his case well.

I just found you accusing him of bias as funny, as you, me and a whole lot more, are just as bad as he is in this regard.

have you read your own posts lately.

 

[Rosy]

So professional AND personal experience more than Gillard

Seems like he was on the money then with his comments, if you ask me...

He made it all the more likely he was referring to Julia's lack of children when he admitted the comments about experience were based on his own daughters. There are babies in the Labor govt too, Penny Wong for example recently became a Mum. The more that man says the deeper the hole he digs.

 

[Rosy]

The saddest thing about this is that you seem to think it's perfectly OK to argue from two opposing positions in the space of two posts and still think you retain a shred of credibility.

Actually less sad than funny.

Quite hilarious really. Changes direction with the wind...and U2 just nods in agreement accordingly. Abbott's daughters vs the entire Labor Govt's experience in cots and prams. Sometimes it's best to just laugh and move on. :rofl

 

[AngryAnt]

hes definately good enough to look after himself, he actually presents his case well.

I just found you accusing him of bias as funny, as you, me and a whole lot more, are just as bad as he is in this regard.

have you read your own posts lately.

We all have our preferences and biases U2, that's fair enough to say. The difference though is that when people disagree with Livers he'll start throwing out the accusations of bias, heads in the sand, sensitivity, hypocrisy and charades. Rosy and others here at least try to stick to the facts and quotes as reported and argue a case without name-calling.

 

[U2Tigers]

Rosy and others here at least try to stick to the facts and quotes as reported and argue a case without name-calling.

c'mon now I have seen it both ways, look at Rosy's last post for an example.

what I notice is, some posters ability to pick and choose what they want read, in order to get the negative light on Abbott. The things that are dissected from an issue, are what they fight, with no mention on anything that can't be taken as a negative of Abbot.

Its laughable to think Livers is the only guilty party in what hes accused.

 

[Rosy]

Its laughable to think Livers is the only guilty party in what hes accused.

The laughable thing is nobody has claimed that. I responded to an actual crack about my own bias from Livers and you replied that one could argue that I am riddled with bias myself as though you'd had a great epiphany.

What do you think of Livers claiming Abbott's comments about Govt experience being based on his inexperience as a minister under the Howard government considering Tony himself has admitted they were based on his personal family situation?

Questioning Abbott is like a red rag to a bull with Livers and you. Fact is he is far too questionable. You don't need to be biased to question some of the things he comes out with.

 

[U2Tigers]

The laughable thing is nobody has claimed that. I responded to an actual crack about my own bias from Livers and you replied that one could argue that I am riddled with bias myself as though you'd had a great epiphany.

What do you think of Livers claiming Abbott's comments about Govt experience being based on his inexperience as a minister under the Howard government considering Tony himself has admitted they were based on his personal family situation?

Questioning Abbott is like a red rag to a bull with Livers and you. Fact is he is far too questionable. You don't need to be biased to question some of the things he comes out with.

Abbott has definately had his gaffes. sad really that these threads are so focussed on him and him alone.

I can't say Abbott doesn't deserve to be questioned, but it is a worry that its all that is discussed.

Its the way the voters want it, which is a troubling thing, when policies of the parties don't even rate a mention these days.

Do I question Labour on this, yes I do, they are deliberately using this tactic, to deflect from their performance, and are using it to cling to pwoer.

But I guess when its working on the masses, why change the tactic.

 

[Baloo]

Do I question Labour on this, yes I do, they are deliberately using this tactic, to deflect from their performance, and are using it to cling to pwoer.

But I guess when its working on the masses, why change the tactic.

I see this as the ALP copying the tactics the Abbott led Libs have been using effectively on the government. It seems to be the only thing that the Australian media fed public want to see.

Whats the bet negative ads appear very early in the piece, and very prominently, of the next election campaign by both sides.

 

[U2Tigers]

I see this as the ALP copying the tactics the Abbott led Libs have been using effectively on the government. It seems to be the only thing that the Australian media fed public want to see.

Whats the bet negative ads appear very early in the piece, and very prominently, of the next election campaign by both sides.

sadly I agree

it will mostly be about the individuals, and very very negative, if the last few months show anything.

 

[Ian4]

No, he shouldn't be more considerate or careful with his words

i agree. i hope he keeps it up :hihi

 

[Rosy]

I see this as the ALP copying the tactics the Abbott led Libs have been using effectively on the government. It seems to be the only thing that the Australian media fed public want to see.

Whats the bet negative ads appear very early in the piece, and very prominently, of the next election campaign by both sides.

They usually do unfortunately. I think Tony is gifting Labor plenty of ammo. I can't see this as a Labor tactic though. Tony admits his comments were based on his daughters' lives. Considering his foot in mouth disease I can't fathom how anyone would feel comfortable with him representing us on the world stage. It will be interesting to see how the campaign ads compare.

 

[Liverpool]

We all have our preferences and biases U2, that's fair enough to say. The difference though is that when people disagree with Livers he'll start throwing out the accusations of bias, heads in the sand, sensitivity, hypocrisy and charades. Rosy and others here at least try to stick to the facts and quotes as reported and argue a case without name-calling.

I'll have to disgagree with you....it is very rare for me to name-call any poster on here, while to be honest, I have a complete set including xenophobe, idiot, Liverscum, homophobe, ignorant, Nazi, just to name a few.
So please stop trying to play a victim card for Rosy, as I am sure if I had name-called her (or anyone else) I still would not be here posting over 8,000 posts.

He made it all the more likely he was referring to Julia's lack of children when he admitted the comments about experience were based on his own daughters. There are babies in the Labor govt too, Penny Wong for example recently became a Mum. The more that man says the deeper the hole he digs.

To be honest Rosy, I think its Julia making out it was about Julia's lack of children more than anything else.

Tony has daughters and decided to use his own personal experience at raising kids to try and get his point across or argue against the ALP decision.

It's not Tony's fault Julia has decided not to go down the path of having kids but it shouldn't mean he can't use his own experience to try and push his case, should it?

 

[Rosy]

Tony has daughters and decided to use his own personal experience at raising kids to try and get his point across or argue against the ALP decision.

It's not Tony's fault Julia has decided not to go down the path of having kids but it shouldn't mean he can't use his own experience to try and push his case, should it?

So now he wasn't referring to his term under the Howard Govt? Glad we finally agree. Took you a while.

Tony can push his own case from the aspect of his daughters' lives all he likes. No issues whatsoever although it's a pretty small sample base to refer to. Wouldn't give it too much credence. It's the reference to the Government's lack of experience in that area that's questionable. Don't you see the difference?

 

[AngryAnt]

I'll have to disgagree with you....it is very rare for me to name-call any poster on here, while to be honest, I have a complete set including xenophobe, idiot, Liverscum, homophobe, ignorant, Nazi, just to name a few.
So please stop trying to play a victim card for Rosy, as I am sure if I had name-called her (or anyone else) I still would not be here posting over 8,000 posts.

Never called Rosy a victim but I did call out your tendency to use emotive terms like "head in the sand", "hypocrisy", and "charade" whenever people disagree with you.

Tony has daughters and decided to use his own personal experience at raising kids to try and get his point across or argue against the ALP decision.

Exactly the opposite position of the "professional experience" line you were running earlier, congratulations.

 

[Liverpool]

So now he wasn't referring to his term under the Howard Govt? Glad we finally agree. Took you a while.

Can we agree it wasn't about Gillard then?
I think that will take longer.... :cutelaugh

Never called Rosy a victim but I did call out your tendency to use emotive terms like "head in the sand", "hypocrisy", and "charade" whenever people disagree with you.

Using emotive terms in emotive subjects is a bit different to getting accused of calling people names, etc.
If people are going to get all sensitive now about the words hypocrisy, head in sand, and charade...(words mainly used to describe ministers or policies within the ALP...and I think quite rightly) then I reckon people need to grow up a little.

Exactly the opposite position of the "professional experience" line you were running earlier, congratulations.

Exactly the opposite of "dog whistling Gillard" and the like that was floating around here earlier too