Who Was Lying, Gillard or Styant-Browne?

I'm not flogging a dead horse, I am merely making the statement that oppositions, be they Labour or coalition, are always negative and always oppose everything the sitting government tries to do. You are the one who has this pathological hatred for Tony Abbott and it would seem most other coalition members and you denounce everything they say or do or have ever done. Tony Abbott and the coalition are not evil demons mate, when it's all boiled down the behaviour of politicians is pretty much the same across the board.

 

Look at the title, I'm defending, attack is the best defense. You, like Abbott and the liberal cronies are spending more time just attacking the government when you should be openly and honestly looking at what the government is trying to achieve and putting forward amendments or alternative ideas.

I know one mob is as bad as the other, that's why we need to use our own brain to figure it out. I am constantly bombarded with criticism that I'm preaching ALP or union propaganda. This is the biggest lot of crap of them all

I totally review everything and make up MY OWN MIND

 

But you don't DV. It is clear that your mind is already made up before you even look at anything Tony Abbott and the coalition say or do or have ever done. You are completely deaf to any suggestion that Tony Abbott says or proposes anything worthwhile just has you are completely deaf to any suggestion the previous Howard government did anything worthwhile. You just regurgatate Labor/Green political rehtoric, slogans and propaganda when it comes to Abbott, Howard and the Lib/Nat coalition. You statement above is around the wrong way, you should have said you make up your own mind before you review anything.

 

The difference is, is that some of us sit on the fence and watch what is happening, we don't build a bigger fence so that we ensure we don't get a reality check from the other side, and make blind blissfully ignorant judgements. Where there is extreme negativity there is sneaky deceptive lies, much like where there is smoke there is fire! I mean Abbott's extreme negativity is enough to make an informed judgement about his character, along with his lack of alternatives. This guy should be flying high in the polls but many people are suspicious of his extreme negativity and so we should be. The sooner we flick this clown and his equally negative buddies, the better. He has no respect for every australian, just those with deep pockets. The libs have some decent back benchers, so give these folks a go. Swan is probably the only negative character on the labor side but has had to defend himself and the government against big whoppers of you know what! It's not hard to make up your mind on this one if you sit on the fence, but if you are entrenched on one side like you obviously are, then it is quite easy to twist information with loads of BS

 

Thanks for that, you have just confirmed that you are even worse than DV!!

 

Bugger Truth you are beating me ... try this


So this is Abbott's view of the poor, they are all drinkers, gamblers or drug addicts...

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/4corners/content/2010/s2846485.htm

Abbott's view of women ... not equal, they have tits!!!!

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/why-abbott-may-not-be-voting-poison-to-young-women-20100811-11zdb.html

now this is more appropriate for women

Source: http://www.smh.com.au/national/abbott-accused-of-being-incredibly-oldfashioned-as-he-lets-off-steam-20100209-nnqr.html

and the best for last, Abbott on the "Truth". Is this who we want Prime Minister.

I know Kerry is a labor man, we are all something, but Abbott said this in his own defence.

Source: http://www.abc.net.au/7.30/content/2010/s2901996.htm

 

Lol.....what amazes me is that people try to convince us this clown is somehow balanced and astute and full of integrity. He is a constantly lying and deceiving hobknob who like you allude to dv, is treating australians in a covertly condescending manner.

 

And I thought you considered everything yourself. What you Quoted does not say that Abbott thinks all poor. It states 'we can’t abolish poverty because poverty in part is a function of individual behaviour.' And then he lays example to what the government can not do. Strange that Truth would also support your assumption of the statement, supposedly sitting on the fence.

More assumption on statement.

so now you wish to project your own beliefs on Abbott's comments

I thought you could do better than making your own meanings of what is stated. Sounds, Too much like your grasping at straws to defend a topic, with the opposition leader said this and that, so it must mean Labor leaders are right.

Isn't it about time, people actually debate the policy and not simply brandish insult around, expecting people to simply agree with your stance?

 

Have you any idea how nuts that looks?

 

DV, that last tirade from you just confirmed my previous sumation of your attitude and approach. You have already made up your mind so now you cast about for something to support your already preconcieved opinion. You are so convinced of the rightness of your preconceptions that you always interpret things that Abbott says so that you get a meaning that fits with your preconceptions. You claim he thinks this, or he thinks that, or he wants this or that or believes some other thing on no other basis that your own biased, entrenched preconceptions. You have provided some worthwhile contributions to this political forum in the past but when it comes to Tony Abbott and the coalition you do yourself a disservice, your responses could be compared to some brainwashed religious nut who can't think for themselves.

 

Good, you have no response to the post itself so you attack me personally, I suppose I make a worthwhile contribution when I agree with you and talk crap when you don't agree. If I only ever achieve one more thing in my life, if that one thing stopped Tony Abbott from being the Prime Minister of Australia, I would die happy.

I have followed the tools career, his pathetic excuse for ideas, he lives in a fantasy world that ceased to exist over 50 years ago.

I believe we are about to enter a time in the world's history like we have never seen before, the only way we will come through in reasonable condition is to change, we as a planet will need to reassess our values.

Abbot and his crew do not in my opinion have anywhere near what it will take to get us through.

 

Yep, like I said, your mind is already made up BEFORE you look at anything Tony Abbot and the coalition do.

"It’s the responsibility of government to try to put policies in place which over time will allow people to improve their situation. But we can’t abolish poverty because poverty in part is a function of individual behaviour.
We can’t stop people drinking; we can’t stop people gambling; we can’t stop people having substance problems; we can’t stop people from making mistakes that cause them to be less well-off than they might otherwise be".

Wot's wrong with that statement? It's the truth. I know it's not politicaly correct but it is still the truth.

"I think it would be folly to expect that women will ever dominate or even approach equal representation in a large number of areas simply because their aptitudes, abilities and interests are different for physiological reasons."

That's right DV, women are different from men. What's your problem?

At least Big Tony has the guts to admit he sometimes stretches the truth. All pollies do it. Ever read Graham Richardsons book? He comes right out and says that telling lies was just a normal part of his job as a labour government minister!

 

Sitting back reading the responses to your post DV. They really struggled to traverse your commentary....lol. They ask for facts and when you give it to them they race around the country side searching under every rock and in every cave trying to desperately find an excuse for this pathetic politician who is infamously and appropriately named "the Mad Monk". Surely the libs have got someone better than this to hang their hats on. Keep em on their toes, I say. I love watching em squirm.

 

All that dialogue and no facts.

 

LOL.
It's covered by that old Truism.....
'If you agree with me you are an intelligent person.
If you don't you are an ignoramus."

 

LMBO
You`ve nailed T&Dv inone.

 

When I was at school I did a subject called English. As a part of this subject I learnt to read. I don't mean to sit down and look at the arrangement of words and what they said, but to look at what the author was telling me, what their plays and poems show of them, whether they meant to or not. Now I'm not from a rich family, nor where my family professional people. We were poor cow cockies, and I was the first one in my family to go to university. But I felt seeing I was at school I would learn something.

It’s the responsibility of government to try to put policies in place which over time will allow people to improve their situation.
This statement is true, the governments job is to manage this country so we can have every reasonable opportunity to pursue our dreams.
But we can’t abolish poverty
Um yes I think we could
because poverty in part is a function of individual behaviour.
"in part", what about the other parts, like in my home town. People are having to live in tents, some working people in caravans. Why, because the majority or workers in the town work in the mining industry. Paid enormous wages so up go the prices, especially rent.
We can’t stop people drinking; we can’t stop people gambling; we can’t stop people having substance problems; we can’t stop people from making mistakes that cause them to be less well-off than they might otherwise be.
No we can't, but these are as prevalent among the rich as well as the poor. In some cases these are not the cause, but the effect of poverty.

The difference between the right and the left is that the further left you are, the more you care. Abbott is extreme right.

This is my own belief, I have just written it, it has nothing to with the ALP, unions or the phase of the moon. It is my opinion.

 

Oh, OK, HOW? further down you agree that people are 'in part' are a function of individual behaviour, that you can not change. Yet you think you can eliminate poverty. Again How?

So as long as we ignore those in poverty for their own individual behaviour, everything is fine. we have eliminated poverty?

So? just because the rich do it, means we all should ignore those that have not the ability to spend like the rich? Irrelevant to the issue. Just because one spends large on something, does not make it right for those who do not have the ability to also spend the same.

LOL... It has nothing to do with the ALP? Nice try there.

 

Apoligies in advance but Cake made of fruit comes to mind. This doesn't make sense and is just a defensive waffle of nothing but male elephant excrement. You should be thankful to DV......actually you should be paying him consultancy fees for putting ideas into perspective for you. Dig deeper garry, you never know how deep your brain capacity will allow you to expand.

 

Apoligies in advance but Cake made of fruit comes to mind. This doesn't make sense and is just a defensive waffle of nothing but male elephant excrement. You should be thankful to DV......actually you should be paying him consultancy fees for putting ideas into perspective for you. Dig deeper garry, you never know how deep your brain capacity will allow you to expand.

 

LOL... this BS coming from somebody who does not comprehend what DV actually quoted.

You state

This very statement indicates you wish to indulge in your own interpretation of the FACTS stated, which is actually explicitly Stepped through by DV in response showing exactly the opposite of what was proclaimed of them.

AND NOW, you wish to try and defend the original post of DV, with contrived tripe. No, DV saw he got it wrong to begin with and clarified, You stupidly try and defend false statement, with insubstantial sentiment.

BUT you so in tune, answer the questions

How can you abolish poverty that is 'in part' a function of individual behaviour (ignore it as DV alludes to?)

We should ignore those that spend like the rich, regardless of ability to pay, Just because the rich can spend?

No more insubstantial rhetoric from the KING of intellectually challenged aristocrat, You know, Professional BS artist...LOL

 

I`ll never understand the leftist "mentality", providing anyone wears a red banner on their shoulder, and their envy on their sleve, they can cheat, lie, steal and embezzle with impunity, they recieve the infinite support of their envious brothers & sisters. Lemmings, born slaves.

 

I never said we should ignore those that spend like the rich, regardless of ability to pay. Once again your mob just pick a word or phrase and make the rest up. I was demonstrating that drinking, gambling and substance abuse is not restricted to the poor.

It is very hard to determine the actual problem among the wealthy as they use money, private clinics etc to hide their problems. The poor have no such avenue. In another thread, a poster referred to the conservatives (I won't use Liberals as it confuses Americans as our Liberals are the exact opposite to theirs which kind of shows that labels mean jack all) as wanting to classify everyone into neat little groups.

First, the poor are the backbone of Australia, the muscle of Australia.
Secondly, the elderly are the roots of Australia, the builders of this nation, the soldiers, the farmers, the people who sweep our streets.
Thirdly, the homeless are the flotsam and jetsam, those that have fallen through the cracks. Some of these have mental illness and due to changes made to our health policies, mainly for cost cutting purposes, they have no avenue for help.

It is heart warming to see the hundreds if not thousands of volunteers who selflessly give of their own time to help those that through one reason or another are unable to help themselves. As a nation though, we seem to only want to help those that can contribute, to pay back what is given, the word charity does not seem to exist in their eyes.

One of the most wonderful things about humans, well life itself is the diversity. People come in all shapes and sizes, in hundreds of shades and colours, tall people short people, smart people and not so smart people. Now this is a good thing, imagine if we all were mathematics nerds or finance nerds. Who would collect the garbage, who would clean the toilet, who would man the checkouts.

So we have a spectrum of people, a spectrum of colour, a spectrum of size and shape, a spectrum of desires and abilities. Light too has a spectrum, but we (humans) can see only a small part of that spectrum, this doesn't mean that the other colours are not there and for that matter are not needed. Actually some of the "invisible" light is very necessary for life.

So we have a spectrum of ability, some of it imposed by natural processes, some of it by cultural processes, some of it by un-natural processes. We have singers like Micheal Crawford right through to Dominor Vobis, from the sweet voice that gave us the Phantom of the Opera through to the gravely grumble of discontent of a grouchy old man who smoked too much. We have mathematical geniuses through to people who need a calculator to add 2 and 2. We have people that can paint like photographs right through to people who's stick figures look wrong.

Without this diversity, this spectrum we have nothing. If we cut off the bottom end, then we have a new bottom end, new people that do not come up to scratch, up to our perception of where we should be, so we cut off the bottom end, then we have a new bottom end, new people that do not come up to scratch, up to our perception of where we should be.

The poor, the low income, and the unemployed are the backbone of our nation, look after them.
The old are the ones who built Australia, respect them.

 

The problem of poverty IS restricted to the POOR. the rich do not have a poverty problem.

Funny you would say "your mob just pick a word or phrase and make the rest up", when you say

Pot calling the kettle black.

Again, The problem of poverty IS restricted to the POOR. the rich do not have a poverty problem. However, the rich get help to curb such behaviour, has nothing to do with the issue. The only way anybody can change(rich or poor), is themselves, not a government or some restrictive department.

However, you would suggest that people in poverty have no such avenue to deal with such problems. Fact is, in Australia, there are many avenues to deal with such activities, that are free to them.

LOL... Again pot calling the kettle black? Aren't you trying to put everybody into neat little groups?

Yes, You would rather put poverty into class warfare. far more general group, that should you ignore the different causes of poverty(as you are attempting to do), you can never eliminate poverty. Attempting to justify activities that promote poverty, by stating the rich also do them, but they have the money to cover them up. Tall poppy syndrome.

Oh, I see, YOU consider that lower class people are the POOR of Australia?

LOL... Flotsam and jetsam? They are not the poor are they? So you are suggesting, that health policy changes have cut out the ability for mental illness to be treated? Yet you want to proclaim that Australia has the best health system?

The problem, you do not see is, people can volunteer as much as they like. People can provide everything you can think of to help get the poor out of the gutter, but if the person themselves does not wish to change, Nothing will not change.

You might like to think that you could lock these people into clinics and so forth, but your just ignoring the problems, which you have attempted to do, by making YOUR statements , in attempt to attribute a false interpretation on somebody elses words.

LOL... imagine if we could fix poverty by eliminating class warfare? LOL

Now your just rambling in an attempt to justify, YOUR own stance on poverty. You obviously have nothing to contribute to the issue and are just attacking anything the opposition come up with as a defence for the government inability to do anything.

Hang on, You wish to now say poverty is relative? Oh I see, we can eliminate poverty by removing the word from the English language. I get it now, because they are not poor, they are not up to OUR perceptions

Perhaps, if you had an inkling of what you where talking about, you would not continue to attempt to score some political points of this issue.

You stated...

It would seem that you are trying to classify everybody groups yourself. Far more broader groups, so you can ignore the causes of poverty. IT is class warfare, according to you.

You would attempt to introduce broad policy that will only widen the gaps of poverty, You know, take it from this group and throw more money at that group.

I see what you think, poverty can be eliminated, as long as you do not actually consider them as POOR. if you consider them as simply lower class, you can ignore the facts.

 

The day you guys can come up with an argument to debate is the day that we will move into the future. As long as you keep attacking the messenger and not the message, we will go nowhere. So why not go back and look at what you actually said and just how wrong it all is. Most of the things you said that I have said are not what I said or feel, just what you have read into it. Say something so I can debate you please.

To me, a poor person is anyone who in this economic climate earn less then 30K I do love that profound opening statement, Poverty is restricted to the poor. Lucky poor, well money can't buy poverty, so the wealthy will just have to miss out.

Put your thoughts in order and come back eh?