That's ok, he makes up for that by understanding around half their policies.

Gee you boys are sounding as shrill as Kevvie...

Have fun

Labor excuses for losing the election:

Murdoch
Murdoch
Murdoch
Murdoch

The dumb gullible Aussies who were going to vote Labor just got taken in by the News Limited media.

Yep, that's it, it's Murdoch's fault.

Describes most Lib voters anyway.

Gee I haven't seen this much bitterness since TWGF circa 2006.

Dp

Edited by thupercoach: 3/9/2013 11:43:27 PM

Not bitter - I'm being honest.

Most people who vote Liberal in this election will regret it.

NewsCorp's bias has been so significant they even cut out Tony Abbott and Jaymes Diaz's gaffes from the episode of The Daily Show segment uploaded to youtube and the show's online content available in Australia.

I take your point but there's equal bias in the Fairfax media, just not as tabloid-like.

But you cannot seriously suggest that it is because of News that people will dump Labor.

Edited by thupercoach: 4/9/2013 06:25:22 AM

Thanks for that Rocko

A question - so apparently Kevin Baker, the liberal guy, has pulled out of the running but his name will still feature on the voting slip (something about pulling out too late or something). What will happen if I put a 1 next to his name?

well sometimes you have to call it for what it is.....

if if looks like shit & smells like shit...it's probably shit

says the gimp

surely you jest...!!

lol.....no, not a Katter supporter.....TBPH just about every politician has their merits and faults..

this is where i lose you people.........i don't particularly like Abbott, or Palmer,or Milne......

KRUDD is a egotistical, narcissist with delusions of grandeur...... and a very poor record in Government....so i will find it extremely hard to vote for a wanker like that....

you are just a sheep.......

Meanwhile, Gillard is under police investigation for her shenanigans at S & G...

Thank you Labor for giving us such outstanding individuals as PMs.

FTFY.

Can't qualify them as "News" if they run editorials as front page news.

-PB

No I am not.

If you want to make claims, have sources to back those claims.

Other wise you are "just another liberal shitspeaker"

-PB

batfink - cool your jets on the single-sentence reply posts that basically attack people's opinions. Making a post that says "you're an idiot" or "you're joking right" aren't really constructive. You're making what is really enjoyable conversation into childish bickering

The vote will go to the next preference, I'm not up on who Liberals have referenced so you'll have to look it up but likely to be Palmer, possible even Greens in your electorate as Fred Nile and One Nation were at the end of the liberals list in Macquarie and Lindsay so that they didn't look to be supporting racism and bigotry.

Whilst I agree a lot of what Batfink says is ill informed horse droppings, he does watch the local news. A quick Google gave me this.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-07-01/off-the-hustings-james-glenday-politicians-pay/4790894

Where are all the howls of condemnation directed at Obama for threatening to invade Syria? No solid proof of chemical weapons used by the Syrian government and contravening international law to launch an illegal attack on a sovereign country. Smells a lot like the Iraq war, only it's Obama leading the cavalry so it's morally permissible.

No blood for oil!

Global Politics.

I keep hearing people saying that Palmer has shot up in opinion polls, do people know of websites that have such polling information available?

-PB

I'd really rather not vote for the Greens, but can anyone give me a run down of asylum seeker policy from parties other than the main two, who treat them like a disease?

Pretty much anyone who wants to process them here and help them has my vote :lol:

I heard the ocean does a pretty good job of processing refugees, I'm not sure if you can vote for it though.

Too far possibly? :-k

Whilst their is no primary proof of the Syrian Government using Chemical weapons, the fact that someone has been using something other than bullets and bombs on civilians is enough to see a need for some form of global intervention. Especially when UN inspectors have been fired upon when trying to get you your proof.

Though the French do say that they have surveillance footage of Government held areas launching Rockets at the area where the alleged Serine Gas attack occurred.

There is a code of conduct that should always be followed and that is YOU DON"T KILL CIVILIANS! (collateral damage excluded)
This was a targeted attack and needs intervention, before the Syrian people are bombed out of existence by their own people.

These people will become legitimate Asylum Seekers and be filling up the new boats Tony paid for sooner rather than later without World wide intervention.

This smells a lot like the "evidence" Rumsfeld and Bush used to justify invading Iraq; supposedly incriminating video evidence, impeding UN inspectors, use of chemical weapons (remember Hussein gassed the Kurds), etc, etc. If there's anything we learnt from the Iraq war it is you don't launch a war without PRIMARY proof (but do Labor people learn?). It's simply a double standard to say this intervention is right while the Iraq was wrong when the circumstances are almost identical.

You can bet your bottom dollar if it were Bush or any other conservative in charge hippies would be pouring out onto the streets int protest flashing their 'no blood for oil!' signs and jumping up and down like lunatics. But because it's Obama in charge it's brave and heroic. A clear, irrefutable double standard.

No one has acted yet so your rant is still only that. I'm sure with the mistakes that were made with Iraq, Obama will take a moment and not rush into another war.

The fact that the French are standing up gives a lot of wait toward this being a bono fide attack and needing the intervention. Remember the world view the French as Cheese eating Surrender Monkeys, so if they are willing to jump into the fight then there is more going on than yet another USA beat down going on.

But for the Iraq war you had multilateral support with no less than 40 countries committing troops. This time you only have France, while Britain and Germany and other key allies have said no. It's quite incredible you justify a possible illegal invasion on the basis of Frances reputation for being "cheese eating surrender monkey's. Is this your best evidence?

Edited by rusty: 4/9/2013 11:28:54 AM