Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1363732615

Message started by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:36am

Title: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:36am

Quote:
Tony Abbott is trying to improve his image with many women. But as I found out when I met him recently, no makeover can erase his track record of public statements and actions, especially on issues of clear gender sensitivity like abortion.

So will the Abbott re-invention as friend of all women be successful? My experience suggests no, at least not with those familiar with history.

Mixed messages

The defining political event of 2012 was Julia Gillard’s now world-famous “misogyny speech” to opposition leader Tony Abbott

It might not be enough to save her politically but it did enormous amounts of damage to her opponent. He knows it and is furiously working to repair his public image in the eyes of women.

If a recent episode of 60 Minutes is anything to go by, we’re set to see a lot more of the Tony Abbott “nice bloke” makeover in the lead up to the election in an attempt to undo the harm.

In the interview with Liz Hayes, Abbott’s lesbian sister Chris, his wife and daughters gathered to spruik his metrosexual qualities.

But the women of Team Abbott are selling a mixed message. On one hand, he’s definitely a changed man. On the other, he’s been misunderstood all along. And OK, Abbott’s said some nasty things in the past. But who in politics hasn’t?

Rewriting history doesn’t work with those who remember

Abbott is a champion of the mixed message too. He told Hayes he has “changed” and he’d like to think that he has “grown”. But as for the accusations of misogyny and sexism made by Gillard in parliament? They were not “fair” and not “true” of him. Not ever.

Confused? I certainly am, and I recently had the opportunity to discuss the issues with him in person, something the vast majority of voters will never do.

I witnessed the attempted impromptu makeover by Abbott in the flesh. Last month Madison Magazine invited me, along with Miranda Devine and Sarah Murdoch, to meet with Abbott and discuss political issues relevant to women. How could I decline? Of particular interest to me is abortion and reproductive health, and this is likely to be why I was invited.

Abbott was polite and keen to talk and gave every impression of being interested in what I had to say. But when I noted he was the first politician from a major party since the 1970s to break bipartisan consensus and politicise abortion, he denied he had intended to do any such thing.

From that point in the conversation I witnessed a fascinating, determined retelling of history by Abbott, along with a perfectly executed case of selective political amnesia.

The past is a foreign country, Tony Abbott does things differently there

It is worth recalling what Tony Abbott has undeniably said and done when it comes abortion as a political issue.

In March 2004, as Health Minister Abbott told students at the University of Adelaide that abortion was the “easy way out” and an “objectively grave matter” that has been “reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience”.


Tony Abbott as health minister in 2003. His comments from that era have not been forgotten by many women. AAP/Dean Lewins
He then pursued an anti-abortion debate in the media, referring to Australia’s abortion “epidemic”, encouraging other anti-abortion MPs such as Christopher Pyne, before being silenced by the pro-RU486 outcome in the parliament in 2006. In that parliamentary debate, Abbott described the abortion rate as “this generation’s legacy of unutterable shame”.

After being overlooked for the Liberal leadership in 2007, Abbott began the slow process of reworking his image, especially on abortion.

In his 2009 book Battlelines and elsewhere Abbott claimed he gave the Adelaide University speech after a constituent at an Australian Christian Lobby conference asked him how he felt about funding 75,000 abortions a year on Medicare.

At the recent Madison forum I criticised Abbott for politicising abortion. One glance at US political life demonstrates to how toxic life becomes for women once abortion becomes a vote-grabber. He responded by stating he would never have broached the issue in public, were it not for the question posed to him about Medicare that he felt he had to answer.

Who does Abbott think he is kidding?

No denying the record

Abbott has a long history of agitating on abortion in unnecessarily inflammatory language. In 2002, well before he was responsible for Medicare, Abbott addressed the Centre for Independent Studies describing abortion on demand as “part of a tendency to treat human beings as disposable throw-away-when-they’re-not-convenient-commodities.”

In that speech Abbott suggested that abortion might be relevant to a “serious debate” about the low birth rate. When I mentioned this 2002 speech to Abbott as evidence of his ongoing personal interest in abortion, above and beyond his role as health minister, he suggested I must have been confused about the year he delivered it. I wasn’t.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:37am

Quote:
Abbott is desperately trying to present himself as an “ordinary bloke”, including by having his mates line up on the beach (fully clothed) and describe him as one to Liz Hayes on national television. But really, how many ordinary blokes spent their undergraduate student days campaigning vociferously against abortion and speaking at public forums with English Morals Campaigner Mary Whitehouse, and the Reverend Fred Nile, as Abbott did in 1978?

I have also documented attempts by Abbott and Pyne to meddle with the Medical Benefits Schedule in 2005, a move interpreted by women in parliament as a potential attack on abortion.

In person, Abbott assured me he could not remember this incident, but if it did occur, it was a simple administrative measure that “would have” originated from the health department bureacracy, not Abbott, and it had nothing to do with abortion anyway.

Another mixed message: Abbott can’t remember, but he knows he didn’t do it.

Some memories don’t fade

Abbott now declares that just like the Clintons he wants abortion to be “safe, legal and rare”, even though the Democrats have long moved on from this trite slogan .

Conveniently for Abbott, this sentiment puts him at odds with political outliers like John Madigan who can pick up the slack and continue the outraged rhetoric about abortion, while Team Abbott works on rewriting history.

But the reality is that Abbott has spent too much of his career – and life – making very political statements about abortion for any reasonable person to believe he could change his views at this relatively late stage.

I have no doubt Abbott wants abortions to be as rare as possible.

Another thing he wants to be rare are memories such as mine.


http://theconversation.edu.au/re-inventing-tony-why-abbotts-attempt-to-woo-women-doesnt-bear-scrutiny-12749

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by cods on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:41am
I witnessed the attempted impromptu makeover by Abbott in the flesh. Last month Madison Magazine invited me, along with Miranda Devine and Sarah Murdoch, to meet with Abbott and discuss political issues relevant to women. How could I decline? Of particular interest to me is abortion and reproductive health, and this is likely to be why I was invited.

I Guess she wasnt armed to the teeth with all the obvious questions either..LOL


god what a terrible thing to do.... he should have gone to Rooty Hill for 5 days instead..

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by cods on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:44am
BTW


I have no doubt Abbott wants abortions to be as rare as possible.




goes for me toooooooo...

so many couples out there dying for a baby...

and yet we sit back and watch babies dying before they are given a chance..


people are having more than one abortion...what does that tell us????

or does stupid women like this think it should be made as easy as buying a latte?

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by FriYAY on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:45am
Unlike the new, real, new, real, real MK111 Gillard.


;D ;D

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by KJT1981 on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:51am
Disclosure Statement

Kate Gleeson receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

The Conversation is funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, Canberra, CDU, Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, La Trobe, Massey, Murdoch, Newcastle. QUT, Swinburne, UniSA, USQ, UTAS, UWS and VU.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:52am

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:45am:
Unlike the new, real, new, real, real MK111 Gillard.


;D ;D


Don't be a dope like dummy or holy dumbness, or a moron like progressives.  Don't wave away the issue of politicians trying to repaint themselves with the electorate and hide their inner beliefs by offering the old argument, "but look at her."  yes, she is crap too. Very few would disagree.  But that's not a reason to ignore Tony's attempts at fooling people into submission. And it's dopes like yourself, dummy, holy dumbness et. al who will guarantee this country continues to linger in obscurity. 

Opinions like yours are probably the reason why the initial establishment of democracy did not include suffrage for all. At least we were saved from the idiot vote.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:53am

KJT1981 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:51am:
Disclosure Statement

Kate Gleeson receives funding from The Australian Research Council.

The Conversation is funded by CSIRO, Melbourne, Monash, RMIT, UTS, UWA, Canberra, CDU, Deakin, Flinders, Griffith, La Trobe, Massey, Murdoch, Newcastle. QUT, Swinburne, UniSA, USQ, UTAS, UWS and VU.


Yes god forbid an educated person writes an article vs. Pickering.

Back to the phone, I think they are about to take you off hold and process your centrelink payment. Idiot.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by FriYAY on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:10am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:52am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:45am:
Unlike the new, real, new, real, real MK111 Gillard.


;D ;D


Don't be a dope like dummy or holy dumbness, or a moron like progressives.  Don't wave away the issue of politicians trying to repaint themselves with the electorate and hide their inner beliefs by offering the old argument, "but look at her."  yes, she is crap too. Very few would disagree.  But that's not a reason to ignore Tony's attempts at fooling people into submission. And it's dopes like yourself, dummy, holy dumbness et. al who will guarantee this country continues to linger in obscurity. 

Opinions like yours are probably the reason why the initial establishment of democracy did not include suffrage for all. At least we were saved from the idiot vote.



Awwwww, didn't like the fact the Gillard has done the same thing so you had to lash out and abuse me for pointing out the hypocrisy.

BTW, it wasn't an "opinion", it was the PM who kept telling us "this is the real Julia".
>
>
So after Rudd and Gillard we are still lingering in obscurity!!! Perhaps that would be a better thread than this then? ::)




Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:13am

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:10am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:52am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:45am:
Unlike the new, real, new, real, real MK111 Gillard.


;D ;D


Don't be a dope like dummy or holy dumbness, or a moron like progressives.  Don't wave away the issue of politicians trying to repaint themselves with the electorate and hide their inner beliefs by offering the old argument, "but look at her."  yes, she is crap too. Very few would disagree.  But that's not a reason to ignore Tony's attempts at fooling people into submission. And it's dopes like yourself, dummy, holy dumbness et. al who will guarantee this country continues to linger in obscurity. 

Opinions like yours are probably the reason why the initial establishment of democracy did not include suffrage for all. At least we were saved from the idiot vote.



Awwwww, didn't like the fact the Gillard has done the same thing so you had to lash out and abuse me for pointing out the hypocrisy.

BTW, it wasn't an "opinion", it was the PM who kept telling us "this is the real Julia".
>
>
So after Rudd and Gillard we are still lingering in obscurity!!! Perhaps that would be a better thread than this then? ::)


I didn't like the fact that you would excuse Tony because of Gillard ;D.  It is very naive, and basically shows that you are not asking for anything better for Australia - just the same old crap.  Well done at placing yourself in the same bag as dummy.   No wonder these politicians can get away with this kind of crap, when all they have to do is convince an imbecile like you. ;D

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by Spot of Borg on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:25am

cods wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:44am:
BTW


I have no doubt Abbott wants abortions to be as rare as possible.




goes for me toooooooo...

so many couples out there dying for a baby...

and yet we sit back and watch babies dying before they are given a chance..


people are having more than one abortion...what does that tell us????

or does stupid women like this think it should be made as easy as buying a latte?


In australia babies arent aborted. Some fetuses are.

SOB

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by FRED. on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:37am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:13am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:10am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:52am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:45am:
Unlike the new, real, new, real, real MK111 Gillard.


;D ;D


Don't be a dope like dummy or holy dumbness, or a moron like progressives.  Don't wave away the issue of politicians trying to repaint themselves with the electorate and hide their inner beliefs by offering the old argument, "but look at her."  yes, she is crap too. Very few would disagree.  But that's not a reason to ignore Tony's attempts at fooling people into submission. And it's dopes like yourself, dummy, holy dumbness et. al who will guarantee this country continues to linger in obscurity. 

Opinions like yours are probably the reason why the initial establishment of democracy did not include suffrage for all. At least we were saved from the idiot vote.



Awwwww, didn't like the fact the Gillard has done the same thing so you had to lash out and abuse me for pointing out the hypocrisy.

BTW, it wasn't an "opinion", it was the PM who kept telling us "this is the real Julia".
>
>
So after Rudd and Gillard we are still lingering in obscurity!!! Perhaps that would be a better thread than this then? ::)


I didn't like the fact that you would excuse Tony because of Gillard ;D.  It is very naive, and basically shows that you are not asking for anything better for Australia - just the same old crap.  Well done at placing yourself in the same bag as dummy.   No wonder these politicians can get away with this kind of crap, when all they have to do is convince an imbecile like you. ;D

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I see Tony is smacking with the leftards brains Try as they might they can't destroy him. Back to your mommas tit children   ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by FriYAY on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:40am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:13am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:10am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:52am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:45am:
Unlike the new, real, new, real, real MK111 Gillard.


;D ;D


Don't be a dope like dummy or holy dumbness, or a moron like progressives.  Don't wave away the issue of politicians trying to repaint themselves with the electorate and hide their inner beliefs by offering the old argument, "but look at her."  yes, she is crap too. Very few would disagree.  But that's not a reason to ignore Tony's attempts at fooling people into submission. And it's dopes like yourself, dummy, holy dumbness et. al who will guarantee this country continues to linger in obscurity. 

Opinions like yours are probably the reason why the initial establishment of democracy did not include suffrage for all. At least we were saved from the idiot vote.



Awwwww, didn't like the fact the Gillard has done the same thing so you had to lash out and abuse me for pointing out the hypocrisy.

BTW, it wasn't an "opinion", it was the PM who kept telling us "this is the real Julia".
>
>
So after Rudd and Gillard we are still lingering in obscurity!!! Perhaps that would be a better thread than this then? ::)


I didn't like the fact that you would excuse Tony because of Gillard ;D.  It is very naive, and basically shows that you are not asking for anything better for Australia - just the same old crap.  Well done at placing yourself in the same bag as dummy. 


You have the attention span of a timing light.

I’ve constantly said that Abbott will not be good for Australia. I think dumping the mining tax is a bad idea, $100 odd million is better than nothing. I think the carbon tax should stay, drop the price a bit, forget the open market idea and use the money on renewable energy infrastructure.

But what can you do when the passion fingered Rudd/Gillard/ALP bugger everything they touch? The ALP’s worst enemy is the ALP.

FFS I even said I like the fact that the Greens, love them or hate them, at least have principles and policies and they stick by them. Something the major parties won’t do because all they care about is getting into or remaining in power.


Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by FriYAY on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:41am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:25am:

cods wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:44am:
BTW


I have no doubt Abbott wants abortions to be as rare as possible.




goes for me toooooooo...

so many couples out there dying for a baby...

and yet we sit back and watch babies dying before they are given a chance..


people are having more than one abortion...what does that tell us????

or does stupid women like this think it should be made as easy as buying a latte?


In australia babies arent aborted. Some fetuses are.

SOB


Go away troll

SOB

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by Peter Freedman on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:07am

cods wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:44am:
BTW


I have no doubt Abbott wants abortions to be as rare as possible.




goes for me toooooooo...

so many couples out there dying for a baby...

and yet we sit back and watch babies dying before they are given a chance..


people are having more than one abortion...what does that tell us????

or does stupid women like this think it should be made as easy as buying a latte?


So cods supports baby farming. Pop 'em out, then give 'em away. Or perhaps they could be sold at auction.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by FRED. on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:12am

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:07am:

cods wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:44am:
BTW


I have no doubt Abbott wants abortions to be as rare as possible.




goes for me toooooooo...

so many couples out there dying for a baby...

and yet we sit back and watch babies dying before they are given a chance..


people are having more than one abortion...what does that tell us????

or does stupid women like this think it should be made as easy as buying a latte?


So cods supports baby farming. Pop 'em out, then give 'em away. Or perhaps they could be sold at auction.

still cant google you up  feesh and cheep  man  .Jurno Bullshyte   ;) ;)

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by Maqqa on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:14am
The interesting thing about Dr Gleeson is her referencing method about Abbott in the article.

If she had used this method in her doctorate citation - she would have got a miserable fail

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by Spot of Borg on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:19am

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:25am:

cods wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:44am:
BTW


I have no doubt Abbott wants abortions to be as rare as possible.




goes for me toooooooo...

so many couples out there dying for a baby...

and yet we sit back and watch babies dying before they are given a chance..


people are having more than one abortion...what does that tell us????

or does stupid women like this think it should be made as easy as buying a latte?


In australia babies arent aborted. Some fetuses are.

SOB


Go away troll

SOB


go away troll

SOB

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:28am

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:40am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:13am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:10am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:52am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:45am:
Unlike the new, real, new, real, real MK111 Gillard.


;D ;D


Don't be a dope like dummy or holy dumbness, or a moron like progressives.  Don't wave away the issue of politicians trying to repaint themselves with the electorate and hide their inner beliefs by offering the old argument, "but look at her."  yes, she is crap too. Very few would disagree.  But that's not a reason to ignore Tony's attempts at fooling people into submission. And it's dopes like yourself, dummy, holy dumbness et. al who will guarantee this country continues to linger in obscurity. 

Opinions like yours are probably the reason why the initial establishment of democracy did not include suffrage for all. At least we were saved from the idiot vote.



Awwwww, didn't like the fact the Gillard has done the same thing so you had to lash out and abuse me for pointing out the hypocrisy.

BTW, it wasn't an "opinion", it was the PM who kept telling us "this is the real Julia".
>
>
So after Rudd and Gillard we are still lingering in obscurity!!! Perhaps that would be a better thread than this then? ::)


I didn't like the fact that you would excuse Tony because of Gillard ;D.  It is very naive, and basically shows that you are not asking for anything better for Australia - just the same old crap.  Well done at placing yourself in the same bag as dummy. 


You have the attention span of a timing light.

I’ve constantly said that Abbott will not be good for Australia. I think dumping the mining tax is a bad idea, $100 odd million is better than nothing. I think the carbon tax should stay, drop the price a bit, forget the open market idea and use the money on renewable energy infrastructure.

But what can you do when the passion fingered Rudd/Gillard/ALP bugger everything they touch? The ALP’s worst enemy is the ALP.

FFS I even said I like the fact that the Greens, love them or hate them, at least have principles and policies and they stick by them. Something the major parties won’t do because all they care about is getting into or remaining in power.


Yes so you've attempted to give yourself credibility, yet it gets undone when you then try to argue that it doesn't matter if Tony is trying to "remake" himself because Gillard did the same thing.  Next time offer some better substance.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:30am

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:14am:
The interesting thing about Dr Gleeson is her referencing method about Abbott in the article.

If she had used this method in her doctorate citation - she would have got a miserable fail


*sigh* dummy continues to be a dummy. Dummy, you have 100 of your own threads where you can be a dummy and have free reign :)  Why try to spread your dummyness to threads where people attempt for serious discussion?


Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by Maqqa on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:36am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:30am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:14am:
The interesting thing about Dr Gleeson is her referencing method about Abbott in the article.

If she had used this method in her doctorate citation - she would have got a miserable fail


*sigh* dummy continues to be a dummy. Dummy, you have 100 of your own threads where you can be a dummy and have free reign :)  Why try to spread your dummyness to threads where people attempt for serious discussion?




There's a difference between a PhD writing for University related business and someone writing on a forum. So your comment shows a lack of education yourself

As for my referencing - I reference more than you. Shove that up your clacker

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:38am

FRED. wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:37am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:13am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:10am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:52am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:45am:
Unlike the new, real, new, real, real MK111 Gillard.


;D ;D


Don't be a dope like dummy or holy dumbness, or a moron like progressives.  Don't wave away the issue of politicians trying to repaint themselves with the electorate and hide their inner beliefs by offering the old argument, "but look at her."  yes, she is crap too. Very few would disagree.  But that's not a reason to ignore Tony's attempts at fooling people into submission. And it's dopes like yourself, dummy, holy dumbness et. al who will guarantee this country continues to linger in obscurity. 

Opinions like yours are probably the reason why the initial establishment of democracy did not include suffrage for all. At least we were saved from the idiot vote.



Awwwww, didn't like the fact the Gillard has done the same thing so you had to lash out and abuse me for pointing out the hypocrisy.

BTW, it wasn't an "opinion", it was the PM who kept telling us "this is the real Julia".
>
>
So after Rudd and Gillard we are still lingering in obscurity!!! Perhaps that would be a better thread than this then? ::)


I didn't like the fact that you would excuse Tony because of Gillard ;D.  It is very naive, and basically shows that you are not asking for anything better for Australia - just the same old crap.  Well done at placing yourself in the same bag as dummy.   No wonder these politicians can get away with this kind of crap, when all they have to do is convince an imbecile like you. ;D

;D ;D ;D ;D ;D I see Tony is smacking with the leftards brains Try as they might they can't destroy him. Back to your mommas tit children   ;D ;D ;D


Another with a lack of cognitive ability. back to fishing Fweddy, set your mind at ease. All this "thinking" is doing you too much damage.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by FriYAY on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:38am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:28am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:40am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:13am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:10am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:52am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:45am:
Unlike the new, real, new, real, real MK111 Gillard.


;D ;D


Don't be a dope like dummy or holy dumbness, or a moron like progressives.  Don't wave away the issue of politicians trying to repaint themselves with the electorate and hide their inner beliefs by offering the old argument, "but look at her."  yes, she is crap too. Very few would disagree.  But that's not a reason to ignore Tony's attempts at fooling people into submission. And it's dopes like yourself, dummy, holy dumbness et. al who will guarantee this country continues to linger in obscurity. 

Opinions like yours are probably the reason why the initial establishment of democracy did not include suffrage for all. At least we were saved from the idiot vote.



Awwwww, didn't like the fact the Gillard has done the same thing so you had to lash out and abuse me for pointing out the hypocrisy.

BTW, it wasn't an "opinion", it was the PM who kept telling us "this is the real Julia".
>
>
So after Rudd and Gillard we are still lingering in obscurity!!! Perhaps that would be a better thread than this then? ::)


I didn't like the fact that you would excuse Tony because of Gillard ;D.  It is very naive, and basically shows that you are not asking for anything better for Australia - just the same old crap.  Well done at placing yourself in the same bag as dummy. 


You have the attention span of a timing light.

I’ve constantly said that Abbott will not be good for Australia. I think dumping the mining tax is a bad idea, $100 odd million is better than nothing. I think the carbon tax should stay, drop the price a bit, forget the open market idea and use the money on renewable energy infrastructure.

But what can you do when the passion fingered Rudd/Gillard/ALP bugger everything they touch? The ALP’s worst enemy is the ALP.

FFS I even said I like the fact that the Greens, love them or hate them, at least have principles and policies and they stick by them. Something the major parties won’t do because all they care about is getting into or remaining in power.


Yes so you've attempted to give yourself credibility, yet it gets undone when you then try to argue that it doesn't matter if Tony is trying to "remake" himself because Gillard did the same thing.  Next time offer some better substance.


I offer substance and you counter with more pissy hypocrisy. ::)

You see it comes undone when you try to argue that it doesn’t matter if Julia tried to "remake" herself because Abbott is now doing the same thing.

You see how that works?

If I were you I’d stick to the Matty wank-a-thons. Surely you’ll get to eat the biscuit next time, imbecile.

;D ;D

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by Maqqa on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:38am
ale is illiterate - so use small words and short sentences

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:39am

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:36am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:30am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:14am:
The interesting thing about Dr Gleeson is her referencing method about Abbott in the article.

If she had used this method in her doctorate citation - she would have got a miserable fail


*sigh* dummy continues to be a dummy. Dummy, you have 100 of your own threads where you can be a dummy and have free reign :)  Why try to spread your dummyness to threads where people attempt for serious discussion?




There's a difference between a PhD writing for University related business and someone writing on a forum. So your comment shows a lack of education yourself

As for my referencing - I reference more than you. Shove that up your clacker


Exactly why you're a dummy :)  Now, do us a favour, go start 100  new threads of nonsense and post in them.  It's low quality humour, but humour nonetheless.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by Maqqa on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:40am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:36am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:30am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:14am:
The interesting thing about Dr Gleeson is her referencing method about Abbott in the article.

If she had used this method in her doctorate citation - she would have got a miserable fail


*sigh* dummy continues to be a dummy. Dummy, you have 100 of your own threads where you can be a dummy and have free reign :)  Why try to spread your dummyness to threads where people attempt for serious discussion?




There's a difference between a PhD writing for University related business and someone writing on a forum. So your comment shows a lack of education yourself

As for my referencing - I reference more than you. Shove that up your clacker


Exactly why you're a dummy :)  Now, do us a favour, go start 100  new threads of nonsense and post in them.  It's low quality humour, but humour nonetheless.



you as an illiterate appreciates the opportunity to read - you are welcome moron

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by progressiveslol on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:42am
Everything in that article that is supposed to be what Abbott said, is actually all debates that need to be had while the women of Australia are using abortion as a form of contraception.

The killing of potentual life is in no means the same as the stopping of potentual conception.

The debate needs to be had at all times while abortion rates are so high.

I hope Abbott never changes in this department and one day we get to have the debates from his past words.

In order to have “safe, legal and rare”, we need those debates.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:43am

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:40am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:39am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:36am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:30am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:14am:
The interesting thing about Dr Gleeson is her referencing method about Abbott in the article.

If she had used this method in her doctorate citation - she would have got a miserable fail


*sigh* dummy continues to be a dummy. Dummy, you have 100 of your own threads where you can be a dummy and have free reign :)  Why try to spread your dummyness to threads where people attempt for serious discussion?




There's a difference between a PhD writing for University related business and someone writing on a forum. So your comment shows a lack of education yourself

As for my referencing - I reference more than you. Shove that up your clacker


Exactly why you're a dummy :)  Now, do us a favour, go start 100  new threads of nonsense and post in them.  It's low quality humour, but humour nonetheless.



you as an illiterate appreciates the opportunity to read - you are welcome moron


* As an illiterate you would appreciate the opportunity to read.  You are welcome moron *

That would've made some sense, dummy.  Now, before commenting on "referencing" perhaps you could learn to form sentences first? ;D 

And to reply to your poorly constructed post, I enjoy low level humour. You know...like dad jokes...Maqqa posts...all the same sad bit of fun.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by Maqqa on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46am
illiterate ale is now trying to show he/she/it is not

keep going ale the illiterate

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:42am:
Everything in that article that is supposed to be what Abbott said, is actually all debates that need to be had while the women of Australia are using abortion as a form of contraception.

The killing of potentual life is in no means the same as the stopping of potentual conception.

The debate needs to be had at all times while abortion rates are so high.

I hope Abbott never changes in this department and one day we get to have the debates from his past words.


Well that's the point isn't it? He has changed his stance on the debate to suit both needs.  It'd be nice if he actually stuck to one issue, but the point remains, as highlighted in the opinion piece, that he has changed his stance to suit. And is now getting unstuck.

As for the ACTUAL debate on abortion, I don't think people on purpose in Australia would use abortion as a form of contraception.  And in the end, women have their right to choose. And if they choose to abort, then it's for no one else to try to politicise and say otherwise.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:47am

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46am:
illiterate ale is now trying to show he/she/it is not

keep going ale the illiterate


lookie at dummy trying to continue on. ;D  Very funny, dummy :)

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by Maqqa on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:49am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:47am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46am:
illiterate ale is now trying to show he/she/it is not

keep going ale the illiterate


lookie at dummy trying to continue on. ;D  Very funny, dummy :)



back under your rock illiterate

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by progressiveslol on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:52am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:42am:
Everything in that article that is supposed to be what Abbott said, is actually all debates that need to be had while the women of Australia are using abortion as a form of contraception.

The killing of potentual life is in no means the same as the stopping of potentual conception.

The debate needs to be had at all times while abortion rates are so high.

I hope Abbott never changes in this department and one day we get to have the debates from his past words.


Well that's the point isn't it? He has changed his stance on the debate to suit both needs.  It'd be nice if he actually stuck to one issue, but the point remains, as highlighted in the opinion piece, that he has changed his stance to suit. And is now getting unstuck.

As for the ACTUAL debate on abortion, I don't think people on purpose in Australia would use abortion as a form of contraception.  And in the end, women have their right to choose. And if they choose to abort, then it's for no one else to try to politicise and say otherwise.

I put the following in as an edit to which you may have missed.

In order to have “safe, legal and rare”, we need those debates.

Abortion should be a well informed decision. All the decisions made before getting pregnant should be well informed. The debates need to be had in times of over representation of abortion because abortion makes us gods, judges and jurors, killers, life less important.

Abortion is a necessary evil, but should never be allowed to run rampant like it means nothing to kill potential life and abortion is exactly that in the 21st century.

The debates from Abbotts words, need to be had.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:53am

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:49am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:47am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46am:
illiterate ale is now trying to show he/she/it is not

keep going ale the illiterate


lookie at dummy trying to continue on. ;D  Very funny, dummy :)



back under your rock illiterate


Go on dummy, go on!  Who needs to pay for the a comedy festival when we have dummy.   ;D  Dummy so funny, especially when dummy keeps missing the point and posting arguments that counteract his own opinions. ;D  Well done dummy :)

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:55am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:52am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:42am:
Everything in that article that is supposed to be what Abbott said, is actually all debates that need to be had while the women of Australia are using abortion as a form of contraception.

The killing of potentual life is in no means the same as the stopping of potentual conception.

The debate needs to be had at all times while abortion rates are so high.

I hope Abbott never changes in this department and one day we get to have the debates from his past words.


Well that's the point isn't it? He has changed his stance on the debate to suit both needs.  It'd be nice if he actually stuck to one issue, but the point remains, as highlighted in the opinion piece, that he has changed his stance to suit. And is now getting unstuck.

As for the ACTUAL debate on abortion, I don't think people on purpose in Australia would use abortion as a form of contraception.  And in the end, women have their right to choose. And if they choose to abort, then it's for no one else to try to politicise and say otherwise.

I put the following in as an edit to which you may have missed.

In order to have “safe, legal and rare”, we need those debates.

Abortion should be a well informed decision. All the decisions made before getting pregnant should be well informed. The debates need to be had in times of over representation of abortion because abortion makes us gods, judges and jurors, killers, life less important.

Abortion is a necessary evil, but should never be allowed to run rampant like it means nothing to kill potential life and abortion is exactly that in the 21st century.

The debates from Abbotts words, need to be had.

Which Abbott's words? The ones for, or the ones against? Or the ones that have simply stumbled?  This isn't about the actual debate of abortion, which I am happy to have anyway if you truly want.  But it's about Tony's inability to maintain an opinion, and his constant changing of his opinion to suit the message of the day. 

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by progressiveslol on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:04am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:55am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:52am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:42am:
Everything in that article that is supposed to be what Abbott said, is actually all debates that need to be had while the women of Australia are using abortion as a form of contraception.

The killing of potentual life is in no means the same as the stopping of potentual conception.

The debate needs to be had at all times while abortion rates are so high.

I hope Abbott never changes in this department and one day we get to have the debates from his past words.


Well that's the point isn't it? He has changed his stance on the debate to suit both needs.  It'd be nice if he actually stuck to one issue, but the point remains, as highlighted in the opinion piece, that he has changed his stance to suit. And is now getting unstuck.

As for the ACTUAL debate on abortion, I don't think people on purpose in Australia would use abortion as a form of contraception.  And in the end, women have their right to choose. And if they choose to abort, then it's for no one else to try to politicise and say otherwise.

I put the following in as an edit to which you may have missed.

In order to have “safe, legal and rare”, we need those debates.

Abortion should be a well informed decision. All the decisions made before getting pregnant should be well informed. The debates need to be had in times of over representation of abortion because abortion makes us gods, judges and jurors, killers, life less important.

Abortion is a necessary evil, but should never be allowed to run rampant like it means nothing to kill potential life and abortion is exactly that in the 21st century.

The debates from Abbotts words, need to be had.

Which Abbott's words? The ones for, or the ones against? Or the ones that have simply stumbled?  This isn't about the actual debate of abortion, which I am happy to have anyway if you truly want.  But it's about Tony's inability to maintain an opinion, and his constant changing of his opinion to suit the message of the day. 

abortion was the “easy way out” and an “objectively grave matter” that has been “reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience"

referring to Australia’s abortion “epidemic”

Abbott described the abortion rate as “this generation’s legacy of unutterable shame”.


From the article
At the recent Madison forum I criticised Abbott for politicising abortion...

Well how else can you get a much needed debate to begin. Criticize all you want, but the debate needs to be had and the only way to do that is to make it political. Which it should be.

Abbott is not changing his mind. He is wanting a debate on the issues. One way of bringing on the debate didnt work, so he tries another, then another. But at no time does he say he doesnt want a debate and all is well with abortion in Australia.

I guess at some point, when you fight against dummies, you will eventually look like the dummy at some stage, to which the real dummies think Abbott is a dummy by changing tact.

Abbott is no dummy, just unsuccessful in a world without morals toward potential life, but all the backing of the judge and juror who owns the temporary garage space.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:20am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:04am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:55am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:52am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:42am:
Everything in that article that is supposed to be what Abbott said, is actually all debates that need to be had while the women of Australia are using abortion as a form of contraception.

The killing of potentual life is in no means the same as the stopping of potentual conception.

The debate needs to be had at all times while abortion rates are so high.

I hope Abbott never changes in this department and one day we get to have the debates from his past words.


Well that's the point isn't it? He has changed his stance on the debate to suit both needs.  It'd be nice if he actually stuck to one issue, but the point remains, as highlighted in the opinion piece, that he has changed his stance to suit. And is now getting unstuck.

As for the ACTUAL debate on abortion, I don't think people on purpose in Australia would use abortion as a form of contraception.  And in the end, women have their right to choose. And if they choose to abort, then it's for no one else to try to politicise and say otherwise.

I put the following in as an edit to which you may have missed.

In order to have “safe, legal and rare”, we need those debates.

Abortion should be a well informed decision. All the decisions made before getting pregnant should be well informed. The debates need to be had in times of over representation of abortion because abortion makes us gods, judges and jurors, killers, life less important.

Abortion is a necessary evil, but should never be allowed to run rampant like it means nothing to kill potential life and abortion is exactly that in the 21st century.

The debates from Abbotts words, need to be had.

Which Abbott's words? The ones for, or the ones against? Or the ones that have simply stumbled?  This isn't about the actual debate of abortion, which I am happy to have anyway if you truly want.  But it's about Tony's inability to maintain an opinion, and his constant changing of his opinion to suit the message of the day. 

abortion was the “easy way out” and an “objectively grave matter” that has been “reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience"

referring to Australia’s abortion “epidemic”

Abbott described the abortion rate as “this generation’s legacy of unutterable shame”.


From the article
At the recent Madison forum I criticised Abbott for politicising abortion...

Well how else can you get a much needed debate to begin. Criticize all you want, but the debate needs to be had and the only way to do that is to make it political. Which it should be.

Abbott is not changing his mind. He is wanting a debate on the issues. One way of bringing on the debate didnt work, so he tries another, then another. But at no time does he say he doesnt want a debate and all is well with abortion in Australia.

I guess at some point, when you fight against dummies, you will eventually look like the dummy at some stage, to which the real dummies think Abbott is a dummy by changing tact.

Abbott is no dummy, just unsuccessful in a world without morals toward potential life, but all the backing of the judge and juror who owns the temporary garage space.

So you're claiming tony wants a debate and is creating one by denying he wants a debate and denying he is debating and denying events that have occured during the debate.  Ok.

I would suggest he started a debate, realized it is not a vote winner and quickly backtracked from his own convictions.  Great leader.

And if anyone thinks they are getting a Howard back in form of tony then you should stop kidding yourself.  Howard was a similar wank job, but the big difference is he at least held conviction.  Look at him now, he still believes he did everything perfectly.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by Peter Freedman on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:24am
NZ had two PMs who undertook makeovers -Norm Kirk and David Lange. But they were both physical changes, losing weight, buying tailored suits and growing their hair a little.  Abbott is changing his beliefs. Well, no, not really. But anything for a vote.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by progressiveslol on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:26am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:20am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:04am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:55am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:52am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:42am:
Everything in that article that is supposed to be what Abbott said, is actually all debates that need to be had while the women of Australia are using abortion as a form of contraception.

The killing of potentual life is in no means the same as the stopping of potentual conception.

The debate needs to be had at all times while abortion rates are so high.

I hope Abbott never changes in this department and one day we get to have the debates from his past words.


Well that's the point isn't it? He has changed his stance on the debate to suit both needs.  It'd be nice if he actually stuck to one issue, but the point remains, as highlighted in the opinion piece, that he has changed his stance to suit. And is now getting unstuck.

As for the ACTUAL debate on abortion, I don't think people on purpose in Australia would use abortion as a form of contraception.  And in the end, women have their right to choose. And if they choose to abort, then it's for no one else to try to politicise and say otherwise.

I put the following in as an edit to which you may have missed.

In order to have “safe, legal and rare”, we need those debates.

Abortion should be a well informed decision. All the decisions made before getting pregnant should be well informed. The debates need to be had in times of over representation of abortion because abortion makes us gods, judges and jurors, killers, life less important.

Abortion is a necessary evil, but should never be allowed to run rampant like it means nothing to kill potential life and abortion is exactly that in the 21st century.

The debates from Abbotts words, need to be had.

Which Abbott's words? The ones for, or the ones against? Or the ones that have simply stumbled?  This isn't about the actual debate of abortion, which I am happy to have anyway if you truly want.  But it's about Tony's inability to maintain an opinion, and his constant changing of his opinion to suit the message of the day. 

abortion was the “easy way out” and an “objectively grave matter” that has been “reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience"

referring to Australia’s abortion “epidemic”

Abbott described the abortion rate as “this generation’s legacy of unutterable shame”.


From the article
At the recent Madison forum I criticised Abbott for politicising abortion...

Well how else can you get a much needed debate to begin. Criticize all you want, but the debate needs to be had and the only way to do that is to make it political. Which it should be.

Abbott is not changing his mind. He is wanting a debate on the issues. One way of bringing on the debate didnt work, so he tries another, then another. But at no time does he say he doesnt want a debate and all is well with abortion in Australia.

I guess at some point, when you fight against dummies, you will eventually look like the dummy at some stage, to which the real dummies think Abbott is a dummy by changing tact.

Abbott is no dummy, just unsuccessful in a world without morals toward potential life, but all the backing of the judge and juror who owns the temporary garage space.

So you're claiming tony wants a debate and is creating one by denying he wants a debate and denying he is debating and denying events that have occured during the debate.  Ok.

I would suggest he started a debate, realized it is not a vote winner and quickly backtracked from his own convictions.  Great leader.

You must have missed what I was saying when I said he has had to change tact and Abbott is no dummy, just unsuccessful in a world without morals toward potential life, but all the backing of the judge and juror who owns the temporary garage space. "

There may never be a right time to debate against all the immoral judge and juror's of potentual life, but someone else should take up the slack from Abbott.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:29am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:26am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:20am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:04am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:55am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:52am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:42am:
Everything in that article that is supposed to be what Abbott said, is actually all debates that need to be had while the women of Australia are using abortion as a form of contraception.

The killing of potentual life is in no means the same as the stopping of potentual conception.

The debate needs to be had at all times while abortion rates are so high.

I hope Abbott never changes in this department and one day we get to have the debates from his past words.


Well that's the point isn't it? He has changed his stance on the debate to suit both needs.  It'd be nice if he actually stuck to one issue, but the point remains, as highlighted in the opinion piece, that he has changed his stance to suit. And is now getting unstuck.

As for the ACTUAL debate on abortion, I don't think people on purpose in Australia would use abortion as a form of contraception.  And in the end, women have their right to choose. And if they choose to abort, then it's for no one else to try to politicise and say otherwise.

I put the following in as an edit to which you may have missed.

In order to have “safe, legal and rare”, we need those debates.

Abortion should be a well informed decision. All the decisions made before getting pregnant should be well informed. The debates need to be had in times of over representation of abortion because abortion makes us gods, judges and jurors, killers, life less important.

Abortion is a necessary evil, but should never be allowed to run rampant like it means nothing to kill potential life and abortion is exactly that in the 21st century.

The debates from Abbotts words, need to be had.

Which Abbott's words? The ones for, or the ones against? Or the ones that have simply stumbled?  This isn't about the actual debate of abortion, which I am happy to have anyway if you truly want.  But it's about Tony's inability to maintain an opinion, and his constant changing of his opinion to suit the message of the day. 

abortion was the “easy way out” and an “objectively grave matter” that has been “reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience"

referring to Australia’s abortion “epidemic”

Abbott described the abortion rate as “this generation’s legacy of unutterable shame”.


From the article
At the recent Madison forum I criticised Abbott for politicising abortion...

Well how else can you get a much needed debate to begin. Criticize all you want, but the debate needs to be had and the only way to do that is to make it political. Which it should be.

Abbott is not changing his mind. He is wanting a debate on the issues. One way of bringing on the debate didnt work, so he tries another, then another. But at no time does he say he doesnt want a debate and all is well with abortion in Australia.

I guess at some point, when you fight against dummies, you will eventually look like the dummy at some stage, to which the real dummies think Abbott is a dummy by changing tact.

Abbott is no dummy, just unsuccessful in a world without morals toward potential life, but all the backing of the judge and juror who owns the temporary garage space.

So you're claiming tony wants a debate and is creating one by denying he wants a debate and denying he is debating and denying events that have occured during the debate.  Ok.

I would suggest he started a debate, realized it is not a vote winner and quickly backtracked from his own convictions.  Great leader.

You must have missed what I was saying when I said he has had to change tact and Abbott is no dummy, just unsuccessful in a world without morals toward potential life, but all the backing of the judge and juror who owns the temporary garage space. "

There may never be a right time to debate against all the immoral judge and juror's of potentual life, but someone else should take up the slack from Abbott.


No I got that, it's okay.  I just think its delusional to think he is changing tact when he isn't just rephrasing but completely denying.  That is a tact change toward populist vote grabbing, and nothing more.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by FriYAY on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:30am

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:24am:
NZ had two PMs who undertook makeovers -Norm Kirk and David Lange. But they were both physical changes, losing weight, buying tailored suits and growing their hair a little.  Abbott is changing his beliefs. Well, no, not really. But anything for a vote.




Apart from the fact no one gives a flying bugger at the moon about NZ – THEY ALL CHOP AND CHANGE TO GET A dam VOTE!!!

You really think Gillard and many others in the ALP want to be tough on poor brown people in boats? Or do you think they are doing it to get a vote?


Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by progressiveslol on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:36am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:29am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:26am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:20am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:04am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:55am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:52am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:46am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 10:42am:
Everything in that article that is supposed to be what Abbott said, is actually all debates that need to be had while the women of Australia are using abortion as a form of contraception.

The killing of potentual life is in no means the same as the stopping of potentual conception.

The debate needs to be had at all times while abortion rates are so high.

I hope Abbott never changes in this department and one day we get to have the debates from his past words.


Well that's the point isn't it? He has changed his stance on the debate to suit both needs.  It'd be nice if he actually stuck to one issue, but the point remains, as highlighted in the opinion piece, that he has changed his stance to suit. And is now getting unstuck.

As for the ACTUAL debate on abortion, I don't think people on purpose in Australia would use abortion as a form of contraception.  And in the end, women have their right to choose. And if they choose to abort, then it's for no one else to try to politicise and say otherwise.

I put the following in as an edit to which you may have missed.

In order to have “safe, legal and rare”, we need those debates.

Abortion should be a well informed decision. All the decisions made before getting pregnant should be well informed. The debates need to be had in times of over representation of abortion because abortion makes us gods, judges and jurors, killers, life less important.

Abortion is a necessary evil, but should never be allowed to run rampant like it means nothing to kill potential life and abortion is exactly that in the 21st century.

The debates from Abbotts words, need to be had.

Which Abbott's words? The ones for, or the ones against? Or the ones that have simply stumbled?  This isn't about the actual debate of abortion, which I am happy to have anyway if you truly want.  But it's about Tony's inability to maintain an opinion, and his constant changing of his opinion to suit the message of the day. 

abortion was the “easy way out” and an “objectively grave matter” that has been “reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience"

referring to Australia’s abortion “epidemic”

Abbott described the abortion rate as “this generation’s legacy of unutterable shame”.


From the article
At the recent Madison forum I criticised Abbott for politicising abortion...

Well how else can you get a much needed debate to begin. Criticize all you want, but the debate needs to be had and the only way to do that is to make it political. Which it should be.

Abbott is not changing his mind. He is wanting a debate on the issues. One way of bringing on the debate didnt work, so he tries another, then another. But at no time does he say he doesnt want a debate and all is well with abortion in Australia.

I guess at some point, when you fight against dummies, you will eventually look like the dummy at some stage, to which the real dummies think Abbott is a dummy by changing tact.

Abbott is no dummy, just unsuccessful in a world without morals toward potential life, but all the backing of the judge and juror who owns the temporary garage space.

So you're claiming tony wants a debate and is creating one by denying he wants a debate and denying he is debating and denying events that have occured during the debate.  Ok.

I would suggest he started a debate, realized it is not a vote winner and quickly backtracked from his own convictions.  Great leader.

You must have missed what I was saying when I said he has had to change tact and Abbott is no dummy, just unsuccessful in a world without morals toward potential life, but all the backing of the judge and juror who owns the temporary garage space. "

There may never be a right time to debate against all the immoral judge and juror's of potentual life, but someone else should take up the slack from Abbott.


No I got that, it's okay.  I just think its delusional to think he is changing tact when he isn't just rephrasing but completely denying.  That is a tact change toward populist vote grabbing, and nothing more.

No, it is a realist position for him to take. He tried and failed in every tact. It is for someone else to bring on the debate and hopefully the debate is had when he is leader.

You cant have ambitions to be PM and keep bringing up a subject that you keep getting knocked down on. They just dont co-exist.


Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:36am

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:30am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:24am:
NZ had two PMs who undertook makeovers -Norm Kirk and David Lange. But they were both physical changes, losing weight, buying tailored suits and growing their hair a little.  Abbott is changing his beliefs. Well, no, not really. But anything for a vote.




Apart from the fact no one gives a flying bugger at the moon about NZ – THEY ALL CHOP AND CHANGE TO GET A dam VOTE!!!

You really think Gillard and many others in the ALP want to be tough on poor brown people in boats? Or do you think they are doing it to get a vote?


Why are you so intent on concentrating on Gillard? Gillard's done. We need to be looking at the next potential PM. We really want to be making the same mistake AGAIN? 3 more years of crap nonsense political point scoring vote grabbing convictionless morons! yay!

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:38am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:36am:
No, it is a realist position for him to take. He tried and failed in every tact. It is for someone else to bring on the debate and hopefully the debate is had when he is leader.

You cant have ambitions to be PM and keep bringing up a subject that you keep getting knocked down on. They just dont co-exist.

So now you're arguing its okay to be convictionless if it wins you votes. OK.

One might suggest he would have a better chance if he provided a better educated and level headed debate.  Instead of presenting such obviously strong views that did nothing but put people off.  And the fact he has such strong views that he now DENIES is reason enough to question his integrity completely. Convictionless. And Dumb.  Purely dumb. It isn't "changing tact".   Its simple hiding.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by FriYAY on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:41am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:36am:

FriYAY wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:30am:

Peter Freedman wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:24am:
NZ had two PMs who undertook makeovers -Norm Kirk and David Lange. But they were both physical changes, losing weight, buying tailored suits and growing their hair a little.  Abbott is changing his beliefs. Well, no, not really. But anything for a vote.




Apart from the fact no one gives a flying bugger at the moon about NZ – THEY ALL CHOP AND CHANGE TO GET A dam VOTE!!!

You really think Gillard and many others in the ALP want to be tough on poor brown people in boats? Or do you think they are doing it to get a vote?


Why are you so intent on concentrating on Gillard? Gillard's done. We need to be looking at the next potential PM. We really want to be making the same mistake AGAIN? 3 more years of crap nonsense political point scoring vote grabbing convictionless morons! yay!


No, i was concentrating on the hypocrisy.

"FFS I even said I like the fact that the Greens, love them or hate them, at least have principles and policies and they stick by them. Something the major parties won’t do because all they care about is getting into or remaining in power"

That's what i want to see.

By bugger some of you hypocrites are slow. :-/


Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by progressiveslol on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:45am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:38am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:36am:
No, it is a realist position for him to take. He tried and failed in every tact. It is for someone else to bring on the debate and hopefully the debate is had when he is leader.

You cant have ambitions to be PM and keep bringing up a subject that you keep getting knocked down on. They just dont co-exist.

So now you're arguing its okay to be convictionless if it wins you votes. OK.

One might suggest he would have a better chance if he provided a better educated and level headed debate.  Instead of presenting such obviously strong views that did nothing but put people off.  And the fact he has such strong views that he now DENIES is reason enough to question his integrity completely. Convictionless. And Dumb.  Purely dumb. It isn't "changing tact".   Its simple hiding.

Would like to see what wording you would choose to start up the debate of the century.


Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by olde.sault on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:46am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:36am:

Quote:
Tony Abbott is trying to improve his image with many women. But as I found out when I met him recently, no makeover can erase his track record of public statements and actions, especially on issues of clear gender sensitivity like abortion.

So will the Abbott re-invention as friend of all women be successful? My experience suggests no, at least not with those familiar with history.

Mixed messages

The defining political event of 2012 was Julia Gillard’s now world-famous “misogyny speech” to opposition leader Tony Abbott

It might not be enough to save her politically but it did enormous amounts of damage to her opponent. He knows it and is furiously working to repair his public image in the eyes of women.

If a recent episode of 60 Minutes is anything to go by, we’re set to see a lot more of the Tony Abbott “nice bloke” makeover in the lead up to the election in an attempt to undo the harm.

In the interview with Liz Hayes, Abbott’s lesbian sister Chris, his wife and daughters gathered to spruik his metrosexual qualities.

But the women of Team Abbott are selling a mixed message. On one hand, he’s definitely a changed man. On the other, he’s been misunderstood all along. And OK, Abbott’s said some nasty things in the past. But who in politics hasn’t?

Rewriting history doesn’t work with those who remember

Abbott is a champion of the mixed message too. He told Hayes he has “changed” and he’d like to think that he has “grown”. But as for the accusations of misogyny and sexism made by Gillard in parliament? They were not “fair” and not “true” of him. Not ever.

Confused? I certainly am, and I recently had the opportunity to discuss the issues with him in person, something the vast majority of voters will never do.

I witnessed the attempted impromptu makeover by Abbott in the flesh. Last month Madison Magazine invited me, along with Miranda Devine and Sarah Murdoch, to meet with Abbott and discuss political issues relevant to women. How could I decline? Of particular interest to me is abortion and reproductive health, and this is likely to be why I was invited.

Abbott was polite and keen to talk and gave every impression of being interested in what I had to say. But when I noted he was the first politician from a major party since the 1970s to break bipartisan consensus and politicise abortion, he denied he had intended to do any such thing.

From that point in the conversation I witnessed a fascinating, determined retelling of history by Abbott, along with a perfectly executed case of selective political amnesia.

The past is a foreign country, Tony Abbott does things differently there

It is worth recalling what Tony Abbott has undeniably said and done when it comes abortion as a political issue.

In March 2004, as Health Minister Abbott told students at the University of Adelaide that abortion was the “easy way out” and an “objectively grave matter” that has been “reduced to a question of the mother’s convenience”.


Tony Abbott as health minister in 2003. His comments from that era have not been forgotten by many women. AAP/Dean Lewins
He then pursued an anti-abortion debate in the media, referring to Australia’s abortion “epidemic”, encouraging other anti-abortion MPs such as Christopher Pyne, before being silenced by the pro-RU486 outcome in the parliament in 2006. In that parliamentary debate, Abbott described the abortion rate as “this generation’s legacy of unutterable shame”.

After being overlooked for the Liberal leadership in 2007, Abbott began the slow process of reworking his image, especially on abortion.

In his 2009 book Battlelines and elsewhere Abbott claimed he gave the Adelaide University speech after a constituent at an Australian Christian Lobby conference asked him how he felt about funding 75,000 abortions a year on Medicare.

At the recent Madison forum I criticised Abbott for politicising abortion. One glance at US political life demonstrates to how toxic life becomes for women once abortion becomes a vote-grabber. He responded by stating he would never have broached the issue in public, were it not for the question posed to him about Medicare that he felt he had to answer.

Who does Abbott think he is kidding?

No denying the record

Abbott has a long history of agitating on abortion in unnecessarily inflammatory language. In 2002, well before he was responsible for Medicare, Abbott addressed the Centre for Independent Studies describing abortion on demand as “part of a tendency to treat human beings as disposable throw-away-when-they’re-not-convenient-commodities.”

In that speech Abbott suggested that abortion might be relevant to a “serious debate” about the low birth rate. When I mentioned this 2002 speech to Abbott as evidence of his ongoing personal interest in abortion, above and beyond his role as health minister, he suggested I must have been confused about the year he delivered it. I wasn’t.


"Damage to his opponent?"

Hardly, his ratings are lifting.  Fact is that he took my advice, slowed his speech and therefore, did away with most of his "umms ".

I noted how the Yank politicians speak - slowly and by doing this, are able to collect their thoughts without stitching with the "umms", the "ers" and the "you know".

I think Tony is doing fine while JuLiar is disgracing herself. These days, she is more entertaining than a soap opera.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:48am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:45am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:38am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:36am:
No, it is a realist position for him to take. He tried and failed in every tact. It is for someone else to bring on the debate and hopefully the debate is had when he is leader.

You cant have ambitions to be PM and keep bringing up a subject that you keep getting knocked down on. They just dont co-exist.

So now you're arguing its okay to be convictionless if it wins you votes. OK.

One might suggest he would have a better chance if he provided a better educated and level headed debate.  Instead of presenting such obviously strong views that did nothing but put people off.  And the fact he has such strong views that he now DENIES is reason enough to question his integrity completely. Convictionless. And Dumb.  Purely dumb. It isn't "changing tact".   Its simple hiding.

Would like to see what wording you would choose to start up the debate of the century.


Something along the lines of... "Further scientific discoveries, and experts from the field, now lead us to..."  Something that has some backing, to start with. Not "BIGGEST TRAVESTY OF ALL TIME, DEATH, GLOOM, SATAN, SATAN" blah blah blah crap and then hiding behind a box hoping no-one heard. And then deny deny deny deny deny.  And nothing referencing, "god" please.   It should at least be with some level of evidence.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by progressiveslol on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:50am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:48am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:45am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:38am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:36am:
No, it is a realist position for him to take. He tried and failed in every tact. It is for someone else to bring on the debate and hopefully the debate is had when he is leader.

You cant have ambitions to be PM and keep bringing up a subject that you keep getting knocked down on. They just dont co-exist.

So now you're arguing its okay to be convictionless if it wins you votes. OK.

One might suggest he would have a better chance if he provided a better educated and level headed debate.  Instead of presenting such obviously strong views that did nothing but put people off.  And the fact he has such strong views that he now DENIES is reason enough to question his integrity completely. Convictionless. And Dumb.  Purely dumb. It isn't "changing tact".   Its simple hiding.

Would like to see what wording you would choose to start up the debate of the century.


Something along the lines of... "Further scientific discoveries, and experts from the field, now lead us to..."  Something that has some backing, to start with. Not "BIGGEST TRAVESTY OF ALL TIME" blah blah blah crap and then hiding behind a box hoping no-one heard.

Yes but it has to be true. To the imoral and amoral, what you state wouldnt shift at all. What science. It is a moral question. A moral debate.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:52am

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:50am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:48am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:45am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:38am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:36am:
No, it is a realist position for him to take. He tried and failed in every tact. It is for someone else to bring on the debate and hopefully the debate is had when he is leader.

You cant have ambitions to be PM and keep bringing up a subject that you keep getting knocked down on. They just dont co-exist.

So now you're arguing its okay to be convictionless if it wins you votes. OK.

One might suggest he would have a better chance if he provided a better educated and level headed debate.  Instead of presenting such obviously strong views that did nothing but put people off.  And the fact he has such strong views that he now DENIES is reason enough to question his integrity completely. Convictionless. And Dumb.  Purely dumb. It isn't "changing tact".   Its simple hiding.

Would like to see what wording you would choose to start up the debate of the century.


Something along the lines of... "Further scientific discoveries, and experts from the field, now lead us to..."  Something that has some backing, to start with. Not "BIGGEST TRAVESTY OF ALL TIME" blah blah blah crap and then hiding behind a box hoping no-one heard.

Yes but it has to be true. To the imoral and amoral, what you state wouldnt shift at all. What science. It is a moral question. A moral debate.

Its a debate that can definitely be led by science.  And that's where some level of truth can come from.  Otherwise, if it's a moral debate then how can you possibly define a truth?   

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by progressiveslol on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:56am

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:52am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:50am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:48am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:45am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:38am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:36am:
No, it is a realist position for him to take. He tried and failed in every tact. It is for someone else to bring on the debate and hopefully the debate is had when he is leader.

You cant have ambitions to be PM and keep bringing up a subject that you keep getting knocked down on. They just dont co-exist.

So now you're arguing its okay to be convictionless if it wins you votes. OK.

One might suggest he would have a better chance if he provided a better educated and level headed debate.  Instead of presenting such obviously strong views that did nothing but put people off.  And the fact he has such strong views that he now DENIES is reason enough to question his integrity completely. Convictionless. And Dumb.  Purely dumb. It isn't "changing tact".   Its simple hiding.

Would like to see what wording you would choose to start up the debate of the century.


Something along the lines of... "Further scientific discoveries, and experts from the field, now lead us to..."  Something that has some backing, to start with. Not "BIGGEST TRAVESTY OF ALL TIME" blah blah blah crap and then hiding behind a box hoping no-one heard.

Yes but it has to be true. To the imoral and amoral, what you state wouldnt shift at all. What science. It is a moral question. A moral debate.

Its a debate that can definitely be led by science.  And that's where some level of truth can come from.  Otherwise, if it's a moral debate then how can you possibly define a truth?   

The judge and juror with the temporary parking space has had ever angle blockaded with activist for time memorial (in context to a need for debate).

The debate has to be on moral grounds because it doesnt matter what the science says about when life begin blah blah.

The debate can only be a moral one and when the people are ready to get past the fact that life is important. All life, even potential life vs potential conception.

You cant get there without upsetting a good many people who are in the amoral stage.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by olde.sault on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:57am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 9:25am:

cods wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 8:44am:
BTW


I have no doubt Abbott wants abortions to be as rare as possible.




goes for me toooooooo...

so many couples out there dying for a baby...

and yet we sit back and watch babies dying before they are given a chance..


people are having more than one abortion...what does that tell us????

or does stupid women like this think it should be made as easy as buying a latte?


In australia babies arent aborted. Some fetuses are.

SOB


Some unwanted fetuses survive.  Some find themselves in violent households and get bashed to death by partners of their biological mothers.

Others die slowly from malnutrition or disease.

If these had been given a choice, would all have chosen to be born for such sentences?

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:00pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:56am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:52am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:50am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:48am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:45am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:38am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 11:36am:
No, it is a realist position for him to take. He tried and failed in every tact. It is for someone else to bring on the debate and hopefully the debate is had when he is leader.

You cant have ambitions to be PM and keep bringing up a subject that you keep getting knocked down on. They just dont co-exist.

So now you're arguing its okay to be convictionless if it wins you votes. OK.

One might suggest he would have a better chance if he provided a better educated and level headed debate.  Instead of presenting such obviously strong views that did nothing but put people off.  And the fact he has such strong views that he now DENIES is reason enough to question his integrity completely. Convictionless. And Dumb.  Purely dumb. It isn't "changing tact".   Its simple hiding.

Would like to see what wording you would choose to start up the debate of the century.


Something along the lines of... "Further scientific discoveries, and experts from the field, now lead us to..."  Something that has some backing, to start with. Not "BIGGEST TRAVESTY OF ALL TIME" blah blah blah crap and then hiding behind a box hoping no-one heard.

Yes but it has to be true. To the imoral and amoral, what you state wouldnt shift at all. What science. It is a moral question. A moral debate.

Its a debate that can definitely be led by science.  And that's where some level of truth can come from.  Otherwise, if it's a moral debate then how can you possibly define a truth?   

The judge and juror with the temproary parking space has had ever angle blockaded with activist for time momorial (in context to a need for debate).

The debate has to be on moral grounds because it doesnt matter what the science says about when life begin blah blah.

The debate can only be a moral one and when the people are ready to get past the fact that life is important. All life, even potentual life vs potentual conception.

You cant get there wqithout upsetting a good many people who are in the amoral stage.


and see that's where you lose me. There are no truths to morals - only social acceptances.  And it'll take more than your preaching to make abortion immoral.  Hence why I suggest a bit of truth through science.  But it's no surprise anyone who would use "god" truth in their argument against abortion would laugh at the idea of science getting involved.  Anyway, I doubt the debate of abortion when it ACTUALLY comes down to it is as simple as you try to make it out.  And I doubt that people who choose to go through with it are immoral, as you try to make out.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by progressiveslol on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:04pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:00pm:
and see that's where you lose me. There are no truths to morals - only social acceptances.  And it'll take more than your preaching to make abortion immoral.  Hence why I suggest a bit of truth through science.  But it's no surprise anyone who would use "god" truth in their argument against abortion would laugh at the idea of science getting involved.  Anyway, I doubt the debate of abortion when it ACTUALLY comes down to it is as simple as you try to make it out.  And I doubt that people who choose to go through with it are immoral, as you try to make out.

I dont see where I used god. Maybe you can point it out for me. Also, I think most people are amoral, but sure there are many who are imoral.

I cant see any moral worth having if you dont extend the right for potentual life to succeed.

It isnt far off in the psychy to thinking life born is not worthy either. And that is as imoral as you could get in my book.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:24pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:04pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:00pm:
and see that's where you lose me. There are no truths to morals - only social acceptances.  And it'll take more than your preaching to make abortion immoral.  Hence why I suggest a bit of truth through science.  But it's no surprise anyone who would use "god" truth in their argument against abortion would laugh at the idea of science getting involved.  Anyway, I doubt the debate of abortion when it ACTUALLY comes down to it is as simple as you try to make it out.  And I doubt that people who choose to go through with it are immoral, as you try to make out.

I dont see where I used god. Maybe you can point it out for me. Also, I think most people are amoral, but sure there are many who are imoral.

I cant see any moral worth having if you dont extend the right for potentual life to succeed.

It isnt far off in the psychy to thinking life born is not worthy either. And that is as imoral as you could get in my book.


And I wouldn't disagree. But life being born and life being conceived are two completely different things that need a sensible and scientific debate to understand the moral aspects properly. It's not good to simply have an opinion and not be able to justify it other then denigrating as what Tony did. And now of course deny deny deny deny deny.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by progressiveslol on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:26pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:04pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:00pm:
and see that's where you lose me. There are no truths to morals - only social acceptances.  And it'll take more than your preaching to make abortion immoral.  Hence why I suggest a bit of truth through science.  But it's no surprise anyone who would use "god" truth in their argument against abortion would laugh at the idea of science getting involved.  Anyway, I doubt the debate of abortion when it ACTUALLY comes down to it is as simple as you try to make it out.  And I doubt that people who choose to go through with it are immoral, as you try to make out.

I dont see where I used god. Maybe you can point it out for me. Also, I think most people are amoral, but sure there are many who are imoral.

I cant see any moral worth having if you dont extend the right for potentual life to succeed.

It isnt far off in the psychy to thinking life born is not worthy either. And that is as imoral as you could get in my book.


And I wouldn't disagree. But life being born and life being conceived are two completely different things that need a sensible and scientific debate to understand the moral aspects properly. It's not good to simply have an opinion and not be able to justify it other then denigrating as what Tony did. And now of course deny deny deny deny deny.

I think we can agree to disagree and I think we are both right. They are both angles in a very difficult and imovable subject.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:32pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:26pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:24pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:04pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:00pm:
and see that's where you lose me. There are no truths to morals - only social acceptances.  And it'll take more than your preaching to make abortion immoral.  Hence why I suggest a bit of truth through science.  But it's no surprise anyone who would use "god" truth in their argument against abortion would laugh at the idea of science getting involved.  Anyway, I doubt the debate of abortion when it ACTUALLY comes down to it is as simple as you try to make it out.  And I doubt that people who choose to go through with it are immoral, as you try to make out.

I dont see where I used god. Maybe you can point it out for me. Also, I think most people are amoral, but sure there are many who are imoral.

I cant see any moral worth having if you dont extend the right for potentual life to succeed.

It isnt far off in the psychy to thinking life born is not worthy either. And that is as imoral as you could get in my book.


And I wouldn't disagree. But life being born and life being conceived are two completely different things that need a sensible and scientific debate to understand the moral aspects properly. It's not good to simply have an opinion and not be able to justify it other then denigrating as what Tony did. And now of course deny deny deny deny deny.

I think we can agree to disagree and I think we are both right. They are both angles in a very difficult and imovable subject.

You're probably right ;)

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:43pm
how is it 'gender sensitive' or sexist to have an opposition to abortion? it is not and never will be purely and solely a 'woman's rights' issue and more than opinions on pedophilia are only permitted in children!


Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:44pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:43pm:
how is it 'gender sensitive' or sexist to have an opposition to abortion? it is not and never will be purely and solely a 'woman's rights' issue and more than opinions on pedophilia are only permitted in children!


You've utterly missed the point.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 20th, 2013 at 2:49pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:43pm:
how is it 'gender sensitive' or sexist to have an opposition to abortion? it is not and never will be purely and solely a 'woman's rights' issue and more than opinions on pedophilia are only permitted in children!


You've utterly missed the point.


which would make more sense and have more potency as a reply if you actually explained WHY.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 2:51pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 2:49pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:43pm:
how is it 'gender sensitive' or sexist to have an opposition to abortion? it is not and never will be purely and solely a 'woman's rights' issue and more than opinions on pedophilia are only permitted in children!


You've utterly missed the point.


which would make more sense and have more potency as a reply if you actually explained WHY.


well read the op and then do some independent thinking on WHY. I'm sure you'll get it.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:25pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 2:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 2:49pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:43pm:
how is it 'gender sensitive' or sexist to have an opposition to abortion? it is not and never will be purely and solely a 'woman's rights' issue and more than opinions on pedophilia are only permitted in children!


You've utterly missed the point.


which would make more sense and have more potency as a reply if you actually explained WHY.


well read the op and then do some independent thinking on WHY. I'm sure you'll get it.


thats sounds a lot like 'i disagree with what you said because you said it'.

I expect that from skippy - not you.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by alevine on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:32pm

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 2:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 2:49pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:43pm:
how is it 'gender sensitive' or sexist to have an opposition to abortion? it is not and never will be purely and solely a 'woman's rights' issue and more than opinions on pedophilia are only permitted in children!


You've utterly missed the point.


which would make more sense and have more potency as a reply if you actually explained WHY.


well read the op and then do some independent thinking on WHY. I'm sure you'll get it.


thats sounds a lot like 'i disagree with what you said because you said it'.

I expect that from skippy - not you.


More because what you said has Nothing to do with the actual point in the OP. It's about Abbott's constant changes, not abortion in general.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by longweekend58 on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:55pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:32pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 3:25pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 2:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 2:49pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:43pm:
how is it 'gender sensitive' or sexist to have an opposition to abortion? it is not and never will be purely and solely a 'woman's rights' issue and more than opinions on pedophilia are only permitted in children!


You've utterly missed the point.


which would make more sense and have more potency as a reply if you actually explained WHY.


well read the op and then do some independent thinking on WHY. I'm sure you'll get it.


thats sounds a lot like 'i disagree with what you said because you said it'.

I expect that from skippy - not you.


More because what you said has Nothing to do with the actual point in the OP. It's about Abbott's constant changes, not abortion in general.


well at least your articulated your positions  - as did I.  and a sideways comment on an OP is hardly uncommon on a forum where half the posters dont even post anywhere near the OP.

Title: Re: Abbott's Attempts at Makeover
Post by Dnarever on Mar 20th, 2013 at 7:25pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 2:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 2:49pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 20th, 2013 at 12:43pm:
how is it 'gender sensitive' or sexist to have an opposition to abortion? it is not and never will be purely and solely a 'woman's rights' issue and more than opinions on pedophilia are only permitted in children!


You've utterly missed the point.


which would make more sense and have more potency as a reply if you actually explained WHY.


well read the op and then do some independent thinking on WHY. I'm sure you'll get it.



Maybe while you are doing the ironing would be a good time

Australian Politics Forum » Powered by YaBB 2.5.2!
YaBB Forum Software © 2000-2025. All Rights Reserved.