The Australian Politics thread: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese


The Australian Politics thread: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese

Author
Message
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
macktheknife wrote:
batfink wrote:
macktheknife wrote:
Quote:
So I think a good thing to discuss is, ignoring whether you agree with the policy or not, if Rudd's 'boat people' solution is going to gain or lose him votes.


It doesn't matter if he loses votes from people shifting further left to the Greens. They'll preference Labor before Liberals, so apart from the handful of places where the Greens can win a HOR seat (and even then, the Greens will never ever ever put Abbott into the Lodge), he could care less about left wingers shifting from Labor to Greens.

His boat people policy is to 1) Neutralise it as an election issue 2) Help win voters off the Liberal party.


didn't labor decide to put the greens last on preferences????


Someone who votes for Labor or Liberals party as #1 won't matter what their preferences are (except for the few seats Greens could win).

Rudd is just trying to win back votes by appealing to an increasingly irate and aging Baby Boomer demographic and has to "address" issues the way that they perceive as most appealing to that niche.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
sydneycroatia58 wrote:
And there are still people who claim the Terrorgraph isn't biased and mega right wing :lol:

Just a shame there isn't anyone out there with the balls to do anything with this embarassment of a "newspaper"



Edited by sydneycroatia58: 4/8/2013 11:07:48 PM



so has anyone confirmed 100% that this is actually the front page of todays Telegraph?????
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
sydneycroatia58
sydneycroatia58
Legend
Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K, Visits: 0
It's real, unfortunately.



Edited by sydneycroatia58: 5/8/2013 10:23:18 AM
Edited
9 Years Ago by sydneycroatia58
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
sydneycroatia58 wrote:
It's real, unfortunately.



Edited by sydneycroatia58: 5/8/2013 10:23:18 AM




how bizarre


Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
sydneycroatia58
sydneycroatia58
Legend
Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)Legend (41K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 40K, Visits: 0
It's really not that bizarre, especially not from the Terror and NewsCorp
Edited
9 Years Ago by sydneycroatia58
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0

Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
Fredsta
Fredsta
Legend
Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)Legend (14K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K, Visits: 0
It's blatant as hell but still worth considering it's an editorial not a story.
Edited
9 Years Ago by Fredsta
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
Fredsta wrote:
It's blatant as hell but still worth considering it's an editorial not a story.

Worth considering? When has it EVER been acceptable to put an opinion piece on your FRONT PAGE?!
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
Fredsta wrote:
It's blatant as hell but still worth considering it's an editorial not a story.

Worth considering? When has it EVER been acceptable to put an opinion piece on your FRONT PAGE?!



desperate times call for desperate measures.......i can only assume that is what Murdock is thinking????
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
Reported by AAPMonday, August 5, 2013

The Australian dollar fell to its lowest level in three years after the release of weaker than expected retail spending figures.

At 1200 AEST on Monday, the local unit was trading at 88.63 US cents, down from 89.07 cents on Friday.

On Monday morning, it dropped as low as 88.48 US cents, its weakest level since August 2010.

Australian retail spending in June was $21.819 billion, little changed from $21.814 billion in May, the Australian Bureau of Statistics said.

The flat result was worse than the 0.4 per cent monthly rise the market was expecting.

CMC Markets foreign exchange dealer Tim Waterer said the data was a fairly disappointing result.

"That hasn't instilled a lot of confidence in the economy and opens the door for a greater chance of a rate cut tomorrow by the Reserve Bank of Australia and the further weakness in the currency will continue," he said.

"The currency was on the downward curve before the data was released, maybe traders were expecting a bad result."

Mr Waterer said he expected the Australian dollar to come under further pressure this week, especially if the RBA decides to cut the cash rate at its board meeting on Tuesday.

"The expectations are the rate will be cut to 2.5 per cent. If the central bank alludes to further rate cuts, then we could be see the Aussie fall to 87.90 US cent some time in the next 24 to 48 hours," Mr Waterer said.

"The risk does appear to be to the downside for the currency, particularly while we have some indifferent performances in commodity prices."

Meanwhile, the Australian bond market was firmer at noon.

At 1200 AEST on Monday, the September 10-year bond futures contract was trading at 96.380 (implying a yield of 3.620 per cent), up from 96.200 (3.800 per cent) on Friday.

The September three-year bond futures contract was at 97.540 (2.460 per cent), up from 97.380 (2.620 per cent).

Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
A newspaper running an editorial as their front page news item is the media equivalent of thupercoach referencing a blog as 'evidence' to support himself.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
rusty
rusty
World Class
World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)World Class (6.2K reputation)

Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K, Visits: 0
sydneycroatia58 wrote:
It's real, unfortunately.



Edited by sydneycroatia58: 5/8/2013 10:23:18 AM


The headline or the three fingered salute?
Edited
9 Years Ago by rusty
No12
No12
Hacker
Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)Hacker (491 reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 486, Visits: 0
They are giving their readers what they want to hear, if they are wrong no one will buy their papers, unlike The ABC, none of you ever questioned their unfair pro Labor broadcasting, I do not agree with their one sided view and my taxes are going their way, at list you have a choice not to buy The Murdoch papers
Edited
9 Years Ago by No12
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
No12 wrote:
They are giving their readers what they want to hear, if they are wrong no one will buy their papers, unlike The ABC, none of you ever questioned their unfair pro Labor broadcasting, I do not agree with their one sided view and my taxes are going their way, at list you have a choice not to buy The Murdoch papers

Similarly, if that's your belief then you have a choice to not watch the ABC.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
paladisious
paladisious
Legend
Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K, Visits: 0
Regarding the Terror's headline:

The Age wrote:
Murdoch's vicious attacks on Rudd: it's business

The arrival of Col Allan in Australia is making a lot of people uneasy.
Allan is a man widely known inside News Corporation as Col Pot, a play on the name of a Cambodian genocidal dictator.
He is News Corp's most feared flamethrower in a company of flamethrowers and he has been sent to Australia by Rupert Murdoch himself. The purpose of his mission has become clear in recent days. One person who should rightly be disconcerted by Allan's sudden secondment to Australia is the head of News Corporation Australia, Kim Williams. Several other executives should also be leery, but they are not Allan's primary target.
His primary target is Kevin Rudd.
Why Murdoch wants Rudd to lose the coming federal election is not merely political, it is commercial. News Corp hates the government's National Broadband Network (NBN). The company has formed a view that it poses a threat to the business model of by far its most important asset in Australia, the Foxtel cable TV monopoly it jointly owns with Telstra.
Murdoch has declared war on Rudd by dispatching his most trusted field general, Allan, whose reputation is built on his closeness to Murdoch and his long history of producing pungent front-page splashes and pugnacious campaigns as editor-in-chief of The Daily Telegraph and, for the past 12 years, The New York Post.
Allan's mission is to help consign Rudd to the dustbin of history reserved for failed leaders.
The ramp-up of the war effort has been rapid and intense.
Friday, July 26: the chief executive of News Corp, Robert Thomson, announced in New York that Allan would be returning to Australia to provide ''extra editorial leadership for our papers …''.
Monday, July 29: Allan is at work in Australia within 72 hours of the announcement.
Tuesday, July 30: he begins several days of meeting with editors. The message is simple and brutal: you have been going hard on Labor but now, with Rudd's revival in the opinion polls, you have to go harder.
Wednesday, July 31: he is reported as lunching with Lachlan Murdoch and other executives.
Friday, August 2: The Daily Telegraph depicts Rudd in a hoodie escaping from a bank he has just robbed, with the headline: ''Rudd's $733m hoist on people's savings''.
Yesterday, August 3, The Australian runs four negative headlines about the Rudd government on its front page alone, including ''Revealed: How Rudd blew $250bn''. The Daily Telegraph splashes with a front-page banner headline: ''Price of Labor - another huge budget shambles … and now we're $30bn in the red''. In Melbourne, the Herald-Sun took out page one with ''It's a ruddy mess''.
Rudd is a broad target. His own parliamentary colleagues could not stomach him and removed him from office after less than three years. After he rose like Lazarus to return as Prime Minister on June 26, one third of the cabinet departed rather than serve with him. His election-eve policy reversal on asylum-seekers was spectacular. His Papua New Guinea detention strategy was exposed as a bluff.
On June 26, Rupert Murdoch used Twitter to write: ''Australian public now totally disgusted with Labor Party wrecking country with it's sordid intrigues. Now for a quick election.'' Rudd's greatest failing, in the eyes of News Corp management, and the greatest threat he poses, is his $45+ billion NBN, a massive project announced without any serious costing. News Corp views this as a threat to the business model of its most important Australian asset, Foxtel, jointly owned with Telstra.
The company much prefers the Coalition's less costly but also less ambitious national broadband strategy. News Corp newspapers have reported the numerous failings and cost-over-runs of the NBN in hundreds of stories.
Although the Coalition's alternative is less costly, it offers an inferior capacity for downloading content at a time when consumer demand is shifting dramatically towards content-on-demand and content via computers.
This shift is reflected in the enormous run-up in the shares of the market leader in content-on-demand, Netflix. Shares in Netflix closed at $US246 (A$276) in New York on Friday, a prodigious run-up from its $52 price a year ago. Netflix now has a market valuation of $US14.5billion compared with $3 billion a year ago.
Foxtel has responded to this threat by launching its own content-on-demand product, FoxtelGo, and is launching an online-only version, FoxtelPlay.
Foxtel's co-parent, News Corp, is engaging in a more structural response.
It wants to kill the NBN threat at its ultimate source - Kevin Rudd.

Edited
9 Years Ago by paladisious
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
No12 wrote:
They are giving their readers what they want to hear, if they are wrong no one will buy their papers, unlike The ABC, none of you ever questioned their unfair pro Labor broadcasting, I do not agree with their one sided view and my taxes are going their way, at list you have a choice not to buy The Murdoch papers

Similarly, if that's your belief then you have a choice to not watch the ABC.



not really...murdock is privately owned......the ABC is government owned


Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
No12 wrote:
They are giving their readers what they want to hear, if they are wrong no one will buy their papers, unlike The ABC, none of you ever questioned their unfair pro Labor broadcasting, I do not agree with their one sided view and my taxes are going their way, at list you have a choice not to buy The Murdoch papers

Similarly, if that's your belief then you have a choice to not watch the ABC.



not really...murdock is privately owned......the ABC is government owned

So because it's government owned they come around to your house every night, Ludovico you and force you to watch the ABC? :-S
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
No12 wrote:
They are giving their readers what they want to hear, if they are wrong no one will buy their papers, unlike The ABC, none of you ever questioned their unfair pro Labor broadcasting, I do not agree with their one sided view and my taxes are going their way, at list you have a choice not to buy The Murdoch papers

Similarly, if that's your belief then you have a choice to not watch the ABC.



not really...murdock is privately owned......the ABC is government owned

So because it's government owned they come around to your house every night, Ludovico you and force you to watch the ABC? :-S


not at all...i was referring to the fact that Murdock owns the newspaper, if he is stupid enough to put headlines on the front page like that he will suffer a backlash to sales one would think......

on the other hand the ABC is Government owned and has a duty to publish accurate and unbiased news....
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
paladisious
paladisious
Legend
Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
No12 wrote:
They are giving their readers what they want to hear, if they are wrong no one will buy their papers, unlike The ABC, none of you ever questioned their unfair pro Labor broadcasting, I do not agree with their one sided view and my taxes are going their way, at list you have a choice not to buy The Murdoch papers

Similarly, if that's your belief then you have a choice to not watch the ABC.



not really...murdock is privately owned......the ABC is government owned

So because it's government owned they come around to your house every night, Ludovico you and force you to watch the ABC? :-S


not at all...i was referring to the fact that Murdock owns the newspaper, if he is stupid enough to put headlines on the front page like that he will suffer a backlash to sales one would think......

on the other hand the ABC is Government owned and has a duty to publish accurate and unbiased news....

Any quotes from the ABC you care to name that are as biased as this front page headline?
Edited
9 Years Ago by paladisious
paladisious
paladisious
Legend
Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)Legend (40K reputation)

Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K, Visits: 0
rusty wrote:
sydneycroatia58 wrote:
It's real, unfortunately.



Edited by sydneycroatia58: 5/8/2013 10:23:18 AM


The headline or the three fingered salute?



Edited
9 Years Ago by paladisious
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
paladisious wrote:
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
No12 wrote:
They are giving their readers what they want to hear, if they are wrong no one will buy their papers, unlike The ABC, none of you ever questioned their unfair pro Labor broadcasting, I do not agree with their one sided view and my taxes are going their way, at list you have a choice not to buy The Murdoch papers

Similarly, if that's your belief then you have a choice to not watch the ABC.



not really...murdock is privately owned......the ABC is government owned

So because it's government owned they come around to your house every night, Ludovico you and force you to watch the ABC? :-S


not at all...i was referring to the fact that Murdock owns the newspaper, if he is stupid enough to put headlines on the front page like that he will suffer a backlash to sales one would think......

on the other hand the ABC is Government owned and has a duty to publish accurate and unbiased news....

Any quotes from the ABC you care to name that are as biased as this front page headline?

:lol: I don't think any Australian media has ever been that biased :lol:
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
433
433
World Class
World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K, Visits: 0
paladisious wrote:
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
No12 wrote:
They are giving their readers what they want to hear, if they are wrong no one will buy their papers, unlike The ABC, none of you ever questioned their unfair pro Labor broadcasting, I do not agree with their one sided view and my taxes are going their way, at list you have a choice not to buy The Murdoch papers

Similarly, if that's your belief then you have a choice to not watch the ABC.



not really...murdock is privately owned......the ABC is government owned

So because it's government owned they come around to your house every night, Ludovico you and force you to watch the ABC? :-S


not at all...i was referring to the fact that Murdock owns the newspaper, if he is stupid enough to put headlines on the front page like that he will suffer a backlash to sales one would think......

on the other hand the ABC is Government owned and has a duty to publish accurate and unbiased news....

Any quotes from the ABC you care to name that are as biased as this front page headline?


Without an answer, Batfink will now return to this thread and focus on another issue. It's funny how supporters of the right-wing disappear when they are scrutinized?
Edited
9 Years Ago by 433
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
433 wrote:
Without an answer, Batfink will now return to this thread and focus on another issue. It's funny how supporters of the right-wing disappear when they are scrutinized?

Incoming attack on asylum seeker policy.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
paladisious wrote:
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
No12 wrote:
They are giving their readers what they want to hear, if they are wrong no one will buy their papers, unlike The ABC, none of you ever questioned their unfair pro Labor broadcasting, I do not agree with their one sided view and my taxes are going their way, at list you have a choice not to buy The Murdoch papers

Similarly, if that's your belief then you have a choice to not watch the ABC.



not really...murdock is privately owned......the ABC is government owned

So because it's government owned they come around to your house every night, Ludovico you and force you to watch the ABC? :-S


not at all...i was referring to the fact that Murdock owns the newspaper, if he is stupid enough to put headlines on the front page like that he will suffer a backlash to sales one would think......

on the other hand the ABC is Government owned and has a duty to publish accurate and unbiased news....

Any quotes from the ABC you care to name that are as biased as this front page headline?


you aren't to bright are you......

1/. the headline is cheap.
2/. if the owner of the newspaper is stupid enough to alienate themselves and lose sales due to inappropriate comments so be it he owns it and the fallout is his morale and economic responsibility....
3/. the ABC is government owned and has no place to play favourites like murdock has and should report in an unbiased and objective manner.
4/.i don't read,support or think the telegraph is a noteworthy publication

the only point about the media i was making ...was that one is privately owned and they can choose to do what they want....the other is Government owned so they is a duty of care to remain unbiased and objective

can i make any simpler for you???? or should i draw pictures??????
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
batfink
batfink
Legend
Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)Legend (10K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
paladisious wrote:
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
batfink wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
No12 wrote:
They are giving their readers what they want to hear, if they are wrong no one will buy their papers, unlike The ABC, none of you ever questioned their unfair pro Labor broadcasting, I do not agree with their one sided view and my taxes are going their way, at list you have a choice not to buy The Murdoch papers

Similarly, if that's your belief then you have a choice to not watch the ABC.



not really...murdock is privately owned......the ABC is government owned

So because it's government owned they come around to your house every night, Ludovico you and force you to watch the ABC? :-S


not at all...i was referring to the fact that Murdock owns the newspaper, if he is stupid enough to put headlines on the front page like that he will suffer a backlash to sales one would think......

on the other hand the ABC is Government owned and has a duty to publish accurate and unbiased news....

Any quotes from the ABC you care to name that are as biased as this front page headline?

:lol: I don't think any Australian media has ever been that biased :lol:


have to agree
Edited
9 Years Ago by batfink
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
batfink wrote:
you aren't to bright are you......

From the guy who keeps spelling "Murdoch" wrong.
Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
433
433
World Class
World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K, Visits: 0
afromanGT wrote:
batfink wrote:
you aren't to bright are you......

From the guy who keeps spelling "Murdoch" wrong.


Nah mate, it's Repurt Murdock

Edited by 433: 5/8/2013 06:27:59 PM
Edited
9 Years Ago by 433
zimbos_05
zimbos_05
Legend
Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)Legend (16K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K, Visits: 0
I need to ask, people gong crazy about Abbott and his asylum seeker policy, when Rudd comes out with something similar, why are people all of a sudden on the Abbot bandwagon then?

I must say though, i kind of agree with that policy in a way. Australia is at a stage where we cant keep funding asylum seekers and giving them housing, funding, centrelink etc etc. We have our own issues and probably need to sort those out. The amount of homeless people in Sydney city was shocking.

Just my view, but then again, i seem to be on some kind of role with crap views so yeah.
Edited
9 Years Ago by zimbos_05
433
433
World Class
World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)World Class (6.9K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K, Visits: 0
zimbos_05 wrote:


I must say though, i kind of agree with that policy in a way. Australia is at a stage where we cant keep funding asylum seekers and giving them housing, funding, centrelink etc etc. We have our own issues and probably need to sort those out. The amount of homeless people in Sydney city was shocking.



Remarkably right-wing of you
Edited
9 Years Ago by 433
afromanGT
afromanGT
Legend
Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)Legend (77K reputation)

Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K, Visits: 0
433 wrote:
afromanGT wrote:
batfink wrote:
you aren't to bright are you......

From the guy who keeps spelling "Murdoch" wrong.


Nah mate, it's Repurt Murdock

Edited by 433: 5/8/2013 06:27:59 PM


Edited
9 Years Ago by afromanGT
GO


Select a Forum....























Inside Sport


Search