Don't know about you all, but I am so sick of the two major party's..I'd like never to see their scheming false faces , or hear their smarmy smug voices ever again.


SO.. the 2 are ganging up on the GREENS.

You should take this as a call for democracy... 
They don't want any challenge to their cosy set-up.
..... their career, their life-long benefits ad nauseam..
Gaf for the Country..!!
(some might, but their party doesn't)

I will not vote for either of the 2  ...and I exhort ALL Australians,... to vote  for anybody BUT the 2.
It is past time we MADE these 'entitled' ..redundant.

Lets get a new thing going.

I must ask you... COULD IT BE ANY WORSE.???

( for those that might leap in with horror pictures of the future...  give it a rest. ::)  We live in AUSTRALIA in 2013 !!   ffs  NOT the 1st half of the last century..!!) .
Do we EVER learn from the past.?
 

Emma wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 12:59am:

I must ask you... COULD IT BE ANY WORSE.???

Instead of Liberal vs Labor the two major parties could be the Greens and One Nation. So yes, it could be a lot worse.

Would it?? 
Really??
At least there would be a clear choice..........

Emma wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 1:29am:

Would it??  Really?? At least there would be a clear choice..........

you are kidding us. Moronic policies and idiot leaders  versus moronic policies and idiot leaders. Unrepresentative swill.

Emma wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 1:29am:

Would it??  Really?? At least there would be a clear choice..........

You're underestimating the Greens. There would still be a few gays and idiots willing to vote for them.

But how would a choice between two idiotic extremist parties that are unable to put forward a candidate with an IQ of more than 80 be good for Australia? Liberal and Labor at least see eye to eye on about 90% of all matters, and even then that final 10% of issues is where all the partisan fights between supporters comes from. If 50% of Australians favoured Greens and 50% favoured One Nation, the extremist rhetoric from both parties would probably cause a civil war. 

:) ;D you is funny Q... .

a civil war huh??

what about Katter vs PUP??  wouldn't that be a laugh..???

It would be a good thing for the One Nation Party to replace the Greens for the protest vote.

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 6:42am:

It would be a good thing for the One Nation Party to replace the Greens for the protest vote.

Perhaps you could let them know there's an election on next month:

http://www.onenation.com.au/events.html#9-2013


;D

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 6:42am:

It would be a good thing for the One Nation Party to replace the Greens for the protest vote.

:D :D :D

i'd vote for a party led by martin bryant and ivan milat before i'd vote green ;) ;)

Quantum wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 1:19am:

Emma wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 12:59am: I must ask you... COULD IT BE ANY WORSE.???   Instead of Liberal vs Labor the two major parties could be the Greens and One Nation. So yes, it could be a lot worse.

good point,  engage brain before starting threads emma.  the greens are simply bad news. ive thrown my dinner at the plasma screen so often when milne or hansen young are on telly, the clean up bill is cruel.  and if adam bandt comes on, there's always the risk of a boot through the screen

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 6:50am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:42am: It would be a good thing for the One Nation Party to replace the Greens for the protest vote. Perhaps you could let them know there's an election on next month: http://www.onenation.com.au/events.html#9-2013 ;D

Well one Nations concerns get a tick from me

1.Loss of jobs, business, industry and manufacturing closing down.
2.Immigration and Multiculturalism - have we ever been asked?   
3.Foreign Investment, how much of Australia do we really own?
4.Farming sector collapsing due to imports and regulations.
5.Political Correctness.
6.Carbon Tax.
7.Illegal boat people, our border protection and national security.
8.The cost of living.

Oh the poor me greens who say they would never support an abbott led government are now crying because a government to be, led by abott, is not supporting the greens.

Too funny. Suck on it

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:16am:

Oh the poor me greens who say they would never support an abbott led government ard now crying because a government to be, led by abott, is not supporting the vreens. Too funny. Suck on it

funny how some people have selective memories..

here's how to vote...

vote for a party that has a history of being able to balance a budget..

vote for a party that will get rid of this curse - "the Carbon Tax Con" ...

don't worry about the rest of the bullshit... personalities .. or anything else... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party...

True Blue... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:22am:

... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party...

::)


Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:26am:

True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth.

Oh, how I second that!!!

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:26am:

True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth.

like you by the sounds of it....

a lot of the other polices are the same so vote on those two things and you can't go wrong...

or you could add in a third option...

vote for the party that has history of being able to STOP the boats...

True Blue... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:32am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. like you by the sounds of it....

No, you I'm afraid.

It's uneducated, ignorant voters like yourself who need to be removed from the electoral roll.

You're an excellent argument against compulsory voting.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:26am:

True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth.

Thank god we have a democracy greg and its not just the urban trendy elite (with that sort of warped attitude) that get to vote.

vote however you like
true blue.   stick it right up the elites who would seek to silence you,  how irrational is your comment greg.  "some people (who dont agree with me) shouldnt  be allowed to vote)   :D :D :D :D :D :D  epic fail

True Blue... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:32am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. like you by the sounds of it.... a lot of the other polices are the same so vote on those two things and you can't go wrong... or you could add in a third option... vote for the party that has history of being able to STOP the boats...

Abbott's economic and refugee policies are but two of the reasons why I will not vote for him.

aquascoot wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:36am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. Thank god we have a democracy greg and its not just the urban trendy elite (with that sort of warped attitude) that get to vote. vote however you like true blue.   stick it right up the elites who would seek to silence you,  how irrational is your comment greg.  "some people (who dont agree with me) shouldnt  be allowed to vote)   :D :D :D :D :D :D  epic fail

Not at all, but there are many who are simply not well-enough informed (often by deliberate choice) to be allowed a vote.

Several of the more strident righties here fit this description to a 'T'.

aquascoot wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:36am:

how irrational is your comment greg.  "some people (who dont agree with me) shouldnt  be allowed to vote)   :D :D :D :D :D :D  epic fail

It seems you have a problem reading the English language.

I never mentioned anything about people who don't agree with me: I said "uneducated, ignorant voters".

See if you can spot the difference.

Kat wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:36am:

True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. like you by the sounds of it.... a lot of the other polices are the same so vote on those two things and you can't go wrong... or you could add in a third option... vote for the party that has history of being able to STOP the boats... Abbott's economic and refugee policies are but two of the reasons why I will not vote for him.

Kat... you sound like a Labor voter...

you are only voting on personality... ABBOTT ABBOTT ABBOTT...

Labor have failed Australians for 6 years straight because they can't balance a simple budget, stop the illegal boats coming and have wacked a HUGE NEW TAX ON US that will see future generations burdened to try and pay back MASSIVE DEBT.... our interest bill alone is 8 BILLION DOLLARS a year.. imagine how that money could help in hospitals etc...

but the labor stooges have only got one policy... "VOTE LABOR, BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE ABBOTT"...

It's just pathetic beyond belief...

Emma Peel

I think you will find there is a big block of people that are sick and tired of this dysfunctional minority government that prefers to listen to minorities causes as opposed to the more broad public that counts for about half the vote in 2010 as well as many ALP voters who have changed their minds since 2010.

You can hate the major parties as much as you like, clearly the electorate did not want a dysfunctional ALP that bent over backwards for the greens and independents in a very undemocratic way.

The greens damaged the ALP brand and are now easy targets with their new uncompromising toxic leader in Milne so of course the major parties have looked at the numbers ....... Libs generally don't get green preferences especially in marginals and the ALP have bled votes to the greens ......... so tactically it makes sense to attack them by both parties.

My view is that if they can't respect the will of the people then they need to go.`

The Dumbacrats did the same thing and look at them now.

The trouble with minority governments is that you have one or two fringe dwellers holding Australians to Ransom...

no one wanted the smacking carbon Tax but a handful of greens...

Gillard sold her arse off so that she could be PM (IM THE PRIME MINISTER - puke) and then she sold Australians out...

and

that's why she's gone now... 

a vote for Labor is a vote to be sold out again...  >:(

True Blue... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:45am:

Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:36am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. like you by the sounds of it.... a lot of the other polices are the same so vote on those two things and you can't go wrong... or you could add in a third option... vote for the party that has history of being able to STOP the boats... Abbott's economic and refugee policies are but two of the reasons why I will not vote for him. Kat... you sound like a Labor voter... you are only voting on personality... ABBOTT ABBOTT ABBOTT... Labor have failed Australians for 6 years straight because they can't balance a simple budget, stop the illegal boats coming and have wacked a HUGE NEW TAX ON US that will see future generations burdened to try and pay back MASSIVE DEBT.... our interest bill alone is 8 BILLION DOLLARS a year.. imagine how that money could help in hospitals etc... but the labor stooges have only got one policy... "VOTE LABOR, BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE ABBOTT"... It's just pathetic beyond belief...

No, I'm voting on what I believe is best for the country.

This current Coalition isn't it.

progressiveslol wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:16am:

Oh the poor me greens who say they would never support an abbott led government are now crying because a government to be, led by abott, is not supporting the greens. Too funny. Suck on it

progressiveslol

I always find it amusing that people with left wing views have such extreme levels of hypocrisy, they look like a 5 year olds throwing a hissyfit in a supermarket when their mother refuses to buy them a chocolate bar.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:40am:

aquascoot wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:36am: how irrational is your comment greg.  "some people (who dont agree with me) shouldnt  be allowed to vote)   :D :D :D :D :D :D  epic fail It seems you have a problem reading the English language. I never mentioned anything about people who don't agree with me: I said "uneducated, ignorant voters". See if you can spot the difference.

myself,as a very successful businessman with a uni degree (with honours) i would consider the urban trendy , intellectual elites, possibly the most ignorant class of voters.  :)

i would still let them vote though (if they can drag themselves away from their favourite barrista and have finished watching their taped re-runs of Q and A)

You are right! Enough is ENOUGH of minority governments. It was always well known the greens would be sent to their death this election and so they should be in this economic climate. Australia at the moment cant not afford their policies. The last 3 years has sent the current government into disrepute.

The greens have not timed their save the world politics very well and will cost them dearly.

Australia and Australians only, need to come first at this stage, the rest of the planet can wait.

enough of the rhetoric, Emma!  it is hardly and 'attack' to withdraw preferences!  In abbott's case it has been that rare thing called 'a matter of principle'.  The coalition opposed, deeply opposes Green politics, ideology and methodology. putting them last is in fact a principled decision.  Labor is opposing the greens because oddly enough, politics is an adversarial contest and the Greens cut into labors vote.  They are not only entitled to opposed them but would be rather silly not to.

The Greens have to stand on their own two gangrenous feet if they ever want to have an impact. Relying on preferences from other parties is the cowards way of operating and now they wont be getting many.

And perhaps if the Greens understood what 'mutual support' meant they wouldn't be getting shafted now.  They had an agreement with Labor which they routinely broke.  They failed to support labor legislation most of the time and even supporting labor to form govt wasn't a gift of any kind.  Once again, they were merely voting to support their own preferred outcome. the fact that it helped labor was irrelevant.  They are the ultimate tantrum party where unless they get their onw way they chuck a tanty.  well the two majors are chucking some back now.  First casualty will be adam bandt who will lose the seat despite getting the highest primary votes!  delicious!

You sound SO confident Longone...I hope we will all be surprised by the outcome... 

and as for relying on preferences,  what got Howard into government but preferences.?.. what hypocrisy.. :-?

Yawn.

So long as we continue with our current electoral system, the two main parties will predominate and the smaller ones cling to the edges.

Emma wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:31pm:

You sound SO confident Longone...I hope we will all be surprised by the outcome...  and as for relying on preferences,  what got Howard into government but preferences.?.. what hypocrisy.. :-?

where do u pick up this nonsense?

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:38pm:

Emma wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:31pm: You sound SO confident Longone...I hope we will all be surprised by the outcome...  and as for relying on preferences,  what got Howard into government but preferences.?.. what hypocrisy.. :-? where do u pick up this nonsense?

She makes it up as she goes along. Hence my YAWN above.

Kat wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:32am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. Oh, how I second that!!!

Like dole bludgers who don't pay any tax, yet use public facilities? I will third that!  :)

matty wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. Oh, how I second that!!! Like dole bludgers who don't pay any tax, yet use public facilities? I will third that!  :)

That's right, Matty. Before universal suffrage, only people who contributed to the economy used to be allowed to vote. You know, people who collected rents and such-like - along with their descendents. People who, for example, own property in Darwin, Ryde, Dunedin and Newport.

Thoughts?

matty wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. Oh, how I second that!!! Like dole bludgers who don't pay any tax, yet use public facilities? I will third that!  :)

actually matty , thats a good idea.  as shareholders in our sovereign state (just like shareholders in, say, BHP)  we should get one proxy vote per $5000 dollars income tax paid. after all, we have ownership.  that should enable me to canel out a few dozen leftard votes. ;) ;)

aquascoot wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 6:59am:

BlOoDy RiPpEr wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:42am: It would be a good thing for the One Nation Party to replace the Greens for the protest vote. i'd vote for a party led by martin bryant and ivan milat before i'd vote green

A liberal vote in any form is still a liberal vote.

greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:26am:

True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. Yes - The people who put in a postal vote for a start  ??

Kat wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:56am:

True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:45am: Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:36am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. like you by the sounds of it.... a lot of the other polices are the same so vote on those two things and you can't go wrong... or you could add in a third option... vote for the party that has history of being able to STOP the boats... Abbott's economic and refugee policies are but two of the reasons why I will not vote for him. Kat... you sound like a Labor voter... you are only voting on personality... ABBOTT ABBOTT ABBOTT... Labor have failed Australians for 6 years straight because they can't balance a simple budget, stop the illegal boats coming and have wacked a HUGE NEW TAX ON US that will see future generations burdened to try and pay back MASSIVE DEBT.... our interest bill alone is 8 BILLION DOLLARS a year.. imagine how that money could help in hospitals etc... but the labor stooges have only got one policy... "VOTE LABOR, BECAUSE WE DON'T LIKE ABBOTT"... It's just pathetic beyond belief... No, I'm voting on what I believe is best for the country. This current Coalition isn't it.

how would you even know how the Liberals would even go?

we've seen what this current Labor government is like and they are disastrous...

so according to you Kat... more disaster is the way to go... say what?  :-/

Kat just wants more dole.  Im not sure if he has another policy request.

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:40pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:38pm: Emma wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:31pm: You sound SO confident Longone...I hope we will all be surprised by the outcome...  and as for relying on preferences,  what got Howard into government but preferences.?.. what hypocrisy.. :-? where do u pick up this nonsense? She makes it up as she goes along. Hence my YAWN above.

Why don't you check it out morons...  speak to Anthony Green, say.

The last Howard Govt?  I believe it was. The quirky thing is.. it was so close on primaries..  in fact I think Labor ACTUAL  won the most primary votes...BUT  HOWARD took it on preferences.

Believe or NOT.~!!! :P
 
I was actually alive then, unlike most of you twerps.
Speaking out their arxxes 

Emma wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 6:20pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:40pm: longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:38pm: Emma wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:31pm: You sound SO confident Longone...I hope we will all be surprised by the outcome...  and as for relying on preferences,  what got Howard into government but preferences.?.. what hypocrisy.. :-? where do u pick up this nonsense? She makes it up as she goes along. Hence my YAWN above. Why don't you check it out morons...  speak to Anthony Green, say. The last Howard Govt?  I believe it was. The quirky thing is.. it was so close on primaries..  in fact I think Labor ACTUAL  won the most primary votes...BUT  HOWARD took it on preferences. Believe or NOT.~!!! :P   I was actually alive then, unlike most of you twerps. Speaking out their arxxes

Last Howard Govt election results (2004)
Primary votes:
Coalition 43.52%
Labor 37.63%


Try and get at least CLOSE to the truth for a change!

OK perhaps it was an earlier election... 'cos it wasn't  the "Coalition"  then.
It was the Liberal Party... who scraped in on National Party preferences..

have a go.. :)

Emma wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 6:40pm:

OK perhaps it was an earlier election... 'cos it wasn't  the "Coalition"  then. It was the Liberal Party... who scraped in on National Party preferences.. have a go.. :)

They are a formal coalition.  Other than a few seats they don't stand in opposition to each other.  If they formally merged - as they have done in QLD - the votes would be identical to now.

But if you want to compare primary votes then take a look at 2010:

ALP 37.99%
Coalition 43.32%

and remember who formed government?  every wonder how Labor got anywhere near the same seats as the coalition? GREENS PREFERENCES.

matty wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 4:51pm:

Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. Oh, how I second that!!! Like dole bludgers who don't pay any tax, yet use public facilities? I will third that!  :)

Um, no, actually. But you are welcome to your fantasies.

look  you guys trashed me 'cos I said what I said..

This was BEFORE  the COALITION. 

The Nats and the Libs  were in competition...  only the Nats didn't have the numbers... but they did preference the LIBS.

Get it?? this was before there was the term  'Coalition', for the combining of Lib/Nats.

No point in looking at more recent data... THAT is TOTALLY irrelevant. 

I said it... you trashed me... now prove it..!!!.

Emma wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:02pm:

look  you guys trashed me 'cos I said what I said.. This was BEFORE  the COALITION.  The Nats and the Libs  were in competition...  only the Nats didn't have the numbers... but they did preference the LIBS. Get it?? this was before there was the term  'Coalition', for the combining of Lib/Nats. No point in looking at more recent data... THAT is TOTALLY irrelevant.  I said it... you trashed me... now prove it..!!!.

tell me about 'before the coalition'  it certainly isn't in the last 50 years so what exactly is your point in the current context?

well Im not THAT old...

and my point in the current context..??  is your take on the 'Coalition',  and Labor essentially agreeing to disempower the Greens as much as poss...  through removing preferential arrangements...as only the right thing to do...as if preferences are some backdoor way of sneaking power... 
.....when preferences were responsible for a win for a LIBERAL GOVERNMENT  under HOWARD. 

Not a Coalition govt...  how old are you??? 
How thick are you??

I mean ..really?? 

why do you think there is NOW a Coalition....??? they joined forces...  agreed to disagree and take out the left.

oh wow...
people do read this forum...

i recently commented on Ozpol  that I had never been polled on any of these election issues... 

lo and behold  .. I have just had a call from a pollster... .. 

Not impressed... because they wanted to know about the FORDE  electorate.. 

I'm in another electorate...  ;D ;D ;D
I ditched them.

You DO UNDERSTAND  don't you....?   that Howard was  a LIBERAL..?
Not a Coalition leader.

Let me ask you.. do you remember DOUG ANTHONY....  ??????
National Party Leader..???

Emma, it is rather difficult to debate with you since you don't seem to have much of an idea of what is going on in politics or the voting system.  Your conclusions are spurious, your logic poor and in most cases factually incorrect.

Other than having a predictably anti-liberal rant, I cant really work out what you are trying to say.

Emma wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:16pm:

well Im not THAT old... and my point in the current context..??  is your take on the 'Coalition',  and Labor essentially agreeing to disempower the Greens as much as poss...  through removing preferential arrangements...as only the right thing to do...as if preferences are some backdoor way of sneaking power...  .....when preferences were responsible for a win for a LIBERAL GOVERNMENT  under HOWARD.  Not a Coalition govt...  how old are you???  How thick are you??

labor won ONLY on preferences in 2010 and even in 2007. No green preferences, no govt.

So what is your point beyond confusion?

Emma wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:46pm:

You DO UNDERSTAND  don't you....?   that Howard was  a LIBERAL..? Not a Coalition leader. Let me ask you.. do you remember DOUG ANTHONY....  ?????? National Party Leader..???

do you have the slightest clue what a FORMAL COALTION is?  It would appear not from any of the rantings you have posted here.

I can only assume from your responses that you have no actual knowledge of the history .. of politics in Australia before 2000.

I can only assume you are WET behind the ears... 

grow up little boy.

Your rants equal mine... perhaps even exceed mine... given that I try to remain on the topic,  but you denigrate and claim incomprehensibility.
If you are that lacking in nous... why do u bother putting fwd your views... you think perhaps,?, speak the lies often enough and the morons  (the public)  will believe it..?

Seems this is correct..   ::)

whats more.... you refuse to  reply to my direct questions... 

Do YOU REMEMBER  DOUG ANTHONY.??
Easy question....  but you can't or won't answer..

Obfuscation and misdirection....  that is the game that works,, isn't it, Longgone?

Longy loves chewing the fat with cigar store Indians and department store mannikins. But he’ll run a mile from any discussion about Mr Abbott’s actual policies.

Much easier to speculate about the history of the coalition.

Did I spell it right, Longy?

huh Karnal my friend..
do you think he knows??

Don't give 'm too much credit.!

Emma wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:42pm:

whats more.... you refuse to  reply to my direct questions...  Do YOU REMEMBER  DOUG ANTHONY.?? Easy question....  but you can't or won't answer.. Obfuscation and misdirection....  that is the game that works,, isn't it, Longgone?

I remember the Doug Anthony All Stars - what a bunch of fvckn morons!

Emma wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 9:23pm:

huh Karnal my friend.. do you think he knows?? Don't give 'm too much credit.!

Of course he knows, EP. Everybody knows.

Some just enjoy being shafted. The old boy below is one. Loves it.

We love them like institutionalized family.members, dear - which is exactly what they are.

Doesn’t make the mandatory 20 minutes at Shady Pines on Boxing Day any easier, but at least they have TV and some grounds for the kids to run around in.

The old boy likes the Doug Anthony All Stars. Obsessed with it.

Thank heavens for Rispiridal, that’s all I can say.

Soren my friend  :)

Yeah I remember them also.     But ..umm..errr..  that was not my reference :)

No NO  I am referring to the political party which was a separate entity from the Doug Anthony Allstars...and a separate entity from the Liberal Party/..    GASP..!!!

Perhaps these fools have never heard of the National Party,  or the Liberal Party. ??  :o :o :o :o

Umm wasn't Joh Bjelke-Peterson QLD PREMIER and Criminal SUPREME
( jeez was that the name??  ::) ) a National Party member.??

See KIDS... you have such narrow views because you don't have enough time on Earth to understand just how badly YOU are played. :(
Not your fault... but please don't think you know all the answers..!!
You DO NOT.

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:25pm:

Emma wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:46pm: You DO UNDERSTAND  don't you....?   that Howard was  a LIBERAL..? Not a Coalition leader. Let me ask you.. do you remember DOUG ANTHONY....  ?????? National Party Leader..??? do you have the slightest clue what a FORMAL COALTION is?  It would appear not from any of the rantings you have posted here.

Nope have no idea what a formal coaltion is.. definition please..??

Kat wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 6:58pm:

matty wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:51pm: Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. Oh, how I second that!!! Like dole bludgers who don't pay any tax, yet use public facilities? I will third that!  :) Um, no, actually. But you are welcome to your fantasies.

Who did you have in mind, then? Righties and conservatives, because we disagree with you?

maybe that is so... 

after all... you all live in longing for the past.. you condemn any attempt at 'change' to your right-wing agenda..  you want to bring back the good old days... you bemoan the fact that the world is now different...  oh boo hoo I want it like it was back in the day... 

well sorry.... change is inevitable...  it  just is...  and no amount of sabre-rattling will change this simple fact.  Altho the change MAY be worse if this bogus garbage continues.

You cannot go BACK.... no matter how you yearn for the good ol' days...

'cos  hey they weren't THAT GOOD.
Believe what you like  ... just a pity really that idiots and media-blasted hype seem to go together...  and  sadly... the interested parties.. ie the rich.. like Murdoch, the western bag,  and other's who rape their country have much more in their arsenal ..because..?? they have the money...

lots of people can no longer form their own opinion... they rabbit the crap they hear on the biased media,  which is all they are capable of dealing with.
We live in interesting times. :(

Addendum.... oh by the way

the Pollster that rang me before, re the Election...???? 
showed up as AN OVERSEAS CALL.!!!

WTF  ::) ::) ::) >:(

matty wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 10:17pm:

Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:58pm: matty wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:51pm: Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. Oh, how I second that!!! Like dole bludgers who don't pay any tax, yet use public facilities? I will third that!  :) Um, no, actually. But you are welcome to your fantasies. Who did you have in mind, then? Righties and conservatives, because we disagree with you?

If the jack-boot fits...

Oh Kat  :)
succinct and too true.

Quote:

like Murdoch, the western bag,  and other's who rape their country have much more in their arsenal ..because..?? they have the money...

Murdoch's empire is one of the best things that an Australian has ever done, he owns FOX an American icon. He employs something like 25,000 people, and people who work there, love working there. He sells newspapers and makes TV shows - how exactly is he 'raping the country' by giving so many people a job? He hasn't 'raped' anything, but grown an international business that has become worldwide. The other Australian success story is Westfield, the own shopping centres and are well known in America too.

I've known a lot of people who have worked for Rupert, and they all speak highly of him and loved working for him. Not many bosses can say that. Hating the guy just because he is rich, is just clichéd.

Kat wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 11:55pm:

matty wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 10:17pm: Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:58pm: matty wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:51pm: Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. Oh, how I second that!!! Like dole bludgers who don't pay any tax, yet use public facilities? I will third that!  :) Um, no, actually. But you are welcome to your fantasies. Who did you have in mind, then? Righties and conservatives, because we disagree with you? If the jack-boot fits...

That's the difference between lefties and righties. We believe in freedom of speech and expression, including for those who don't agree with our views.

Matty..?? 
that is the smallest bit of BIG crap I have ever read.  You are fooling yourself if you believe THAT.
Freedom of Speech and Expression...??? 

That is s'posed to mean something??
  Why isn't Assange here in AUSTRALIA..??  iF YOU BELIEVE THAT!! then THE NUMERO UNO task for this wonderful new government you perceive  MUST BE... BRING ASSANGE HOME...

Isn't the US conservative and right-wing..?? YES it definitely is..  Oh yeah and they really love their freedom of speech..as long as it doesn't say anything real.  Proof?.... Manning ...Snowden... 
I do not want Australia to be a US clone.. we ARE worthy... despite what our pollies are doing.......so we need a new crowd.... not the old school fheads that have governed for far too  long.
  I'd actually rather have a multi-party parliament, which HAS TO seek consensus across the range of political views to pass Law.

That would be a democracy.

Quantum wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 2:08am:

Emma wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 1:29am: Would it??  Really?? At least there would be a clear choice.......... You're underestimating the Greens. There would still be a few gays and idiots willing to vote for them. But how would a choice between two idiotic extremist parties that are unable to put forward a candidate with an IQ of more than 80 be good for Australia? Liberal and Labor at least see eye to eye on about 90% of all matters, and even then that final 10% of issues is where all the partisan fights between supporters comes from. If 50% of Australians favoured Greens and 50% favoured One Nation, the extremist rhetoric from both parties would probably cause a civil war.

@ the moment its a choice between 2 extremist parties that are exactly the same. If it was those 2 @ least they would be different. the parties used to be different and nobody called them extremist. Its just the last decade or so they have all drifted to the right and become indistinguishable except 1 party is more abusive than the other.

SOB

Poll

Lets see what would happen if they were the only choices

SOB

matty wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 12:37am:

Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 11:55pm: matty wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 10:17pm: Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:58pm: matty wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:51pm: Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. Oh, how I second that!!! Like dole bludgers who don't pay any tax, yet use public facilities? I will third that!  :) Um, no, actually. But you are welcome to your fantasies. Who did you have in mind, then? Righties and conservatives, because we disagree with you? If the jack-boot fits... That's the difference between lefties and righties. We believe in freedom of speech and expression, including for those who don't agree with our views.

Really?

The abuse and denigration I cop from the Right on here, simply because I support a
raise in the dole rate, gives the blatantly obvious lie to your statement.

And that's just one example...

True Blue... wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 7:22am:

... vote for a party that has a history of being able to balance a budget.. ...

A party that worships budget surpluses to the point that they neglect infrastructure and sell off assets for short-term gain.

Emma wrote on Aug 15^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:

I can only assume from your responses that you have no actual knowledge of the history .. of politics in Australia before 2000. I can only assume you are WET behind the ears...  grow up little boy. Your rants equal mine... perhaps even exceed mine... given that I try to remain on the topic,  but you denigrate and claim incomprehensibility. If you are that lacking in nous... why do u bother putting fwd your views... you think perhaps,?, speak the lies often enough and the morons  (the public)  will believe it..? Seems this is correct..   ::)

Im quite aware of my history.  but to answer your question, you actually need to pose one.  At the moment you are jumping about like a scared rabbit throwing words around  without formulating a complete sentence nevermind forming an actual question.   So far I have debunked everything you said about Howard elections with actual statistics.

Now would you care to make a point that is understandable this time?

Emma wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 2:34am:

Matty..??  that is the smallest bit of BIG crap I have ever read.  You are fooling yourself if you believe THAT. Freedom of Speech and Expression...???  That is s'posed to mean something??   Why isn't Assange here in AUSTRALIA..??  iF YOU BELIEVE THAT!! then THE NUMERO UNO task for this wonderful new government you perceive  MUST BE... BRING ASSANGE HOME... Isn't the US conservative and right-wing..?? YES it definitely is..  Oh yeah and they really love their freedom of speech..as long as it doesn't say anything real.  Proof?.... Manning ...Snowden...  I do not want Australia to be a US clone.. we ARE worthy... despite what our pollies are doing.......so we need a new crowd.... not the old school fheads that have governed for far too  long.   I'd actually rather have a multi-party parliament, which HAS TO seek consensus across the range of political views to pass Law. That would be a democracy.

You must be SOB's wife/daughter/pet.  You are making about the same level of sense.

matty wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 12:37am:

Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 11:55pm: matty wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 10:17pm: Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 6:58pm: matty wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 4:51pm: Kat wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:32am: greggerypeccary wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:26am: True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... just vote on those two reasons and you'll pick the right party... ::) Some people just shouldn't be allowed near a polling booth. Oh, how I second that!!! Like dole bludgers who don't pay any tax, yet use public facilities? I will third that!  :) Um, no, actually. But you are welcome to your fantasies. Who did you have in mind, then? Righties and conservatives, because we disagree with you? If the jack-boot fits... That's the difference between lefties and righties. We believe in freedom of speech and expression, including for those who don't agree with our views.

That’s right. If you disagree with Matty, you need to provide proof.

Proof please, leftards

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 7:29am:

Quantum wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 2:08am: Emma wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 1:29am: Would it??  Really?? At least there would be a clear choice.......... You're underestimating the Greens. There would still be a few gays and idiots willing to vote for them. But how would a choice between two idiotic extremist parties that are unable to put forward a candidate with an IQ of more than 80 be good for Australia? Liberal and Labor at least see eye to eye on about 90% of all matters, and even then that final 10% of issues is where all the partisan fights between supporters comes from. If 50% of Australians favoured Greens and 50% favoured One Nation, the extremist rhetoric from both parties would probably cause a civil war.  @ the moment its a choice between 2 extremist parties that are exactly the same. If it was those 2 @ least they would be different. the parties used to be different and nobody called them extremist. Its just the last decade or so they have all drifted to the right and become indistinguishable except 1 party is more abusive than the other. SOB

The only reason you think liberal and Labor are extremist right parties is because you yourself are a full blown poster child lefty. Several time you have made this claim that both parties are drifting to the right, but compared to when? Do you think either party had such a soft spot or tolerance for welfare, refugees, multiculturalism, sexual preferences, etc 50 years ago? If anything both parties are moving further left. Just because a party like the greens has gone totally off the chart left doesn't mean that the centre need be pulled left by a great margin as well. The big two are not moving right, just people like you misplacing where the centre actually is.

Quantum wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 2:08pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 7:29am: Quantum wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 2:08am: Emma wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 1:29am: Would it??  Really?? At least there would be a clear choice.......... You're underestimating the Greens. There would still be a few gays and idiots willing to vote for them. But how would a choice between two idiotic extremist parties that are unable to put forward a candidate with an IQ of more than 80 be good for Australia? Liberal and Labor at least see eye to eye on about 90% of all matters, and even then that final 10% of issues is where all the partisan fights between supporters comes from. If 50% of Australians favoured Greens and 50% favoured One Nation, the extremist rhetoric from both parties would probably cause a civil war.  @ the moment its a choice between 2 extremist parties that are exactly the same. If it was those 2 @ least they would be different. the parties used to be different and nobody called them extremist. Its just the last decade or so they have all drifted to the right and become indistinguishable except 1 party is more abusive than the other. SOB The only reason you think liberal and Labor are extremist right parties is because you yourself are a full blown poster child lefty. Several time you have made this claim that both parties are drifting to the right, but compared to when? Do you think either party had such a soft spot or tolerance for welfare, refugees, multiculturalism, sexual preferences, etc 50 years ago? If anything both parties are moving further left. Just because a party like the greens has gone totally off the chart left doesn't mean that the centre need be pulled left by a great margin as well. The big two are not moving right, just people like you misplacing where the centre actually is.

Very true.  and the left/right thing is something very poorly understood by most on here and SOB etc in particular. Labor and Liberals occupy pretty much the same place as centre-right parties while the greens are solidly left.

But try and get a true believer to understand that!

longone.. you have NOT refuted my claims of a HOWARD LIBERAL GOVERNMENT winning on preferences from THE NATIONAL PARTY.

You how singularly refused to look at those stats... you keep ignoring my point... that preferences won Howard and THE LIBERAL PARTY government in the past.
IT is true,  and YOU don't want to know.  You have lost any cred you ever thought you had, over this one.

I CHALLENGE YOU... to look back......   to the years which have led up to our current situation.  BEFORE  the COALITION.

WHY cannot you grasp THAT.?? 

Emma Peel

You might want to look into the seats that the nationals actually compete with the Liberals to see how dumb your argument is.

RSF ...you might want to look at the seats currently ...  where Libs are competing with Nats...  ::) ::)

None in my neighbourhood....  can you name  a few???  frankly I couldn't be bothered...  like I said ... I have had enough of these 2... this du-opoly (OK so I made up a word) ... why would I?.... no-one has addressed my issue with Longone about treatment of preferences,,, least of all him.. and I don't have any desire to try and prove what I know is true. I been trashed BABY... without any support of actual facts relevant to my point. I have have better things to do,  and know you'll not proceed, because u will discover things you don't want to know.

Not my problem.... like I SAID... the LNP and LABOR are not getting a vote from ME. 

Emma wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 7:27pm:

longone.. you have NOT refuted my claims of a HOWARD LIBERAL GOVERNMENT winning on preferences from THE NATIONAL PARTY. You how singularly refused to look at those stats... you keep ignoring my point... that preferences won Howard and THE LIBERAL PARTY government in the past. IT is true,  and YOU don't want to know.  You have lost any cred you ever thought you had, over this one. I CHALLENGE YOU... to look back......   to the years which have led up to our current situation.  BEFORE  the COALITION. WHY cannot you grasp THAT.??

when did the formal coalition (a term you admit to not understanding) begin?

and as fred rightly says, the nats and libs don't generally compete meaning that it isn't preferences that gets the coalition over the line but SEAT.

and unfortunately, if there is a point you are trying to make, you are making it so badly that no one is really sure what you are trying to say.

Emma wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:08pm:

RSF ...you might want to look at the seats currently ...  where Libs are competing with Nats...  ::) ::) None in my neighbourhood....  can you name  a few???  frankly I couldn't be bothered...  like I said ... I have had enough of these 2... this du-opoly (OK so I made up a word) ... why would I?.... no-one has addressed my issue with Longone about treatment of preferences,,, least of all him.. and I don't have any desire to try and prove what I know is true. I been trashed BABY... without any support of actual facts relevant to my point. I have have better things to do,  and know you'll not proceed, because u will discover things you don't want to know. Not my problem.... like I SAID... the LNP and LABOR are not getting a vote from ME.

then what exactly IS Your issue other than an inability to pose a question that can be understood?

I'm not posing a question...
  I am saying enough is enough ...
THAT is a STATEMENT. 

I'm not arguing  .... I am saying...

I won't vote for either party... 
they might as well join up,  and become the LLNP..... LaborLiberalNationalParty. :(

One of my major problems with minor parties like One Nation and the Greens, is that their policies shouldn't even be called policies at all, both minor parties have poor foreign policies and the greens could have one of the worst defence policy i have seen EVER... And when it comes to the greens they often but not publicly attack economic growth as the main problem leading to ecological destruction and runaway climate change.

Economist (at less at Utas) love reading and having a laugh at the greens policys, they are really a joke.

left-flank.org/2010/08/15/greens-economics-2-the-problem-with-the-problem-with-growth/

But id i had to choose it would be one nation. but both parties are pretty poor..

hello Ahovking
well thanks for your comment.. and welcome  umm..

Just disturbs me a little that your base of reality is Economics..
No offense...  :) ;D

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 8:11pm:

Emma wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 8:08pm: RSF ...you might want to look at the seats currently ...  where Libs are competing with Nats...  ::) ::) None in my neighbourhood....  can you name  a few???  frankly I couldn't be bothered...  like I said ... I have had enough of these 2... this du-opoly (OK so I made up a word) ... why would I?.... no-one has addressed my issue with Longone about treatment of preferences,,, least of all him.. and I don't have any desire to try and prove what I know is true. I been trashed BABY... without any support of actual facts relevant to my point. I have have better things to do,  and know you'll not proceed, because u will discover things you don't want to know. Not my problem.... like I SAID... the LNP and LABOR are not getting a vote from ME.  then what exactly IS Your issue other than an inability to pose a question that can be understood?

Kat gotye tongue :P ?  Longgone on a Long Weekend??

# wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 7:47am:

True Blue... wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 7:22am: ... vote for a party that has a history of being able to balance a budget.. ... A party that worships budget surpluses to the point that they neglect infrastructure and sell off assets for short-term gain.

It's not about worshiping surpluses.  A surplus is just not spending more than you earn. Christ if everyone spent more than they earned every year for 20 years where would we be?  IF Labor didn't always accumulate massive debt then the assets wouldn't need to be sold and services wouldn't need to be cut.  It's been over 20 years since Labor managed a surplus.  That's just dysfunctional and irresponsible Government every time they get into power they eff it up.

Labor's mismanagement is directly responsible for the very things you're whinging about..... :(

I agree with #

There is no 'Golden Rule' that says governments are  best to seek a surplus, in spite of anything else.  That is just rubbish.

Why people in the street worry their heads about it is beyond me.  They think they should get less.. from the govt THEY put into POWER,  for THEIR benefit,  so that these pollies can say they're in SURPLUS.??
Since when has being 'in surplus'  been the primary goal of government?... government of the people by the people for the people. !  ::)

Government is NOT  a  BUSINESS ...whatever you are lead to believe.

Government is ABOVE  business... or should be.
( NOT LATELY !)  >:(

This shift in direction for Australian governmental ethos occurred during the Howard yrs. 
Labor FAILED to retain it's integrity.  ... and bought into the whole globalisation,  laissez-faire approach..
They WENT along with workplace agreements,  for example.
I told Gibson and  Jenny George at the time... wrong path ...
but they thought Labor had to jump on board the new BUSINESS model Bandwagon....... :P :P :P :P :P
Hack Hack  Puke

And here we are boys and girls.

It is interesting to have lived long enough to be able to look back ,  in some depth,  and see the changes/non-changes that have led to NOW.

Emma wrote on Aug 19^th, 2013 at 11:47pm:

I agree with # There is no 'Golden Rule' that says governments are  best to seek a surplus, in spite of anything else.  That is just rubbish. Why people in the street worry their heads about it is beyond me.  They think they should get less.. from the govt THEY put into POWER,  for THEIR benefit,  so that these pollies can say they're in SURPLUS.?? Since when has being 'in surplus'  been the primary goal of government?... government of the people by the people for the people. !  ::) Government is NOT  a  BUSINESS ...whatever you are lead to believe. Government is ABOVE  business... or should be. ( NOT LATELY !)  >:( This shift in direction for Australian governmental ethos occurred during the Howard yrs.  Labor FAILED to retain it's integrity.  ... and bought into the whole globalisation,  laissez-faire approach.. They WENT along with workplace agreements,  for example. I told Gibson and  Jenny George at the time... wrong path ... but they thought Labor had to jump on board the new BUSINESS model Bandwagon....... :P :P :P :P :P Hack Hack  Puke And here we are boys and girls. It is interesting to have lived long enough to be able to look back ,  in some depth,  and see the changes/non-changes that have led to NOW.

how do you think things get paid for???  Ever wondered about that?  IM guessing no.

err

that'd be TAX.!!

Emma wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:12am:

err that'd be TAX.!!

Why bother? Just keep going into the red forever. Apparently it doesn't matter if you spend more than you got.

Qube...
I think you'd find... IF you looked... that Governments  in SURPLUS  as a rule of the day.....are virtually NON-EXISTENT    ..AROUND the WORLD,  historically... AND presently.

This  current touted philosophy of govt budget surplus  is just a smacking furphy.. a red herring...

a pile of crap.. in other words..

Show me ONE country, where a government has run a surplus for decades.. YOU WONT FIND ONE... nor should you.

Government IS NOT about profit, surplus etc..  its about looking after,  and caring for the people who voted them in.

Shiote on surplus,, when Australians live hungry on the streets,  and the mentally ill are abandoned, along with  the aged.,.and the young brain-damaged..not to mention un-supported returned vets....   
a SURPLUS is more important to you ...

and you and your foul ilk blame other victims for it. 
Bunch of feckless opinionated ignorant  biased creeps.

 

how do you think things get paid for???  Ever wondered about that?  IM guessing no.[/quote]

See ?  Longgoneawaybush??

TAX  ... tax pays....   ...
having a surplus means....   more tax is paid than spent. More Income is received than expenditure.
( Basically...) 

NOW ... get real here OK?? 
IF...
IF  we are in surplus... there should be NO OUTSTANDING national need for government assistance,... anywhere on the this land.
So... Surplus means more to our pollies, than the welfare (that means WELL-BEING  >:()  of the people.

Is that so hard to understand.??

Emma wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:52am:

Qube... I think you'd find... IF you looked... that Governments  in SURPLUS  as a rule of the day.....are virtually NON-EXISTENT    ..AROUND the WORLD,  historically... AND presently. This  current touted philosophy of govt budget surplus  is just a smacking furphy.. a red herring... a pile of crap.. in other words.. Show me ONE country, where a government has run a surplus for decades.. YOU WONT FIND ONE... nor should you. Government IS NOT about profit, surplus etc..  its about looking after,  and caring for the people who voted them in. Shiote on surplus,, when Australians live hungry on the streets,  and the mentally ill are abandoned, along with  the aged.,.and the young brain-damaged..not to mention un-supported returned vets....    a SURPLUS is more important to you ...

Then I ask again, why bother with tax?

Why sell any infrastructure? For that matter, if the government owns something, why charge money for the use of it? Land rates, water, electricity, public transport, phone/internet etc. If it is still government owned, why charge for anything?

What is the point of collecting any money for anything if a government intends to just borrow/print whatever it needs without end? Think about it.


Quote:

and you and your foul ilk blame other victims for it.  Bunch of feckless opinionated ignorant  biased creeps.

1:00am... still a judgemental total smacking bitch to anyone who dares make you think about something from another perspective.

Quantum wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 1:07am:

Emma wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:52am: Qube... I think you'd find... IF you looked... that Governments  in SURPLUS  as a rule of the day.....are virtually NON-EXISTENT    ..AROUND the WORLD,  historically... AND presently. This  current touted philosophy of govt budget surplus  is just a smacking furphy.. a red herring... a pile of crap.. in other words.. Show me ONE country, where a government has run a surplus for decades.. YOU WONT FIND ONE... nor should you. Government IS NOT about profit, surplus etc..  its about looking after,  and caring for the people who voted them in. Shiote on surplus,, when Australians live hungry on the streets,  and the mentally ill are abandoned, along with  the aged.,.and the young brain-damaged..not to mention un-supported returned vets....    a SURPLUS is more important to you ... Then I ask again, why bother with tax? Why sell any infrastructure? For that matter, if the government owns something, why charge money for the use of it? Land rates, water, electricity, public transport, phone/internet etc. If it is still government owned, why charge for anything? What is the point of collecting any money for anything if a government intends to just borrow/print whatever it needs without end? Think about it. Quote: and you and your foul ilk blame other victims for it.  Bunch of feckless opinionated ignorant  biased creeps. 1:00am... still a judgemental total smacking bitch to anyone who dares make you think about something from another perspective.

THINK ABOUT IT??  I have  .. long time.. hey  I worked for TREASURY.. Do you understand THAT.?

Perhaps YOU might explain , then... how the country runs...??

Your reply makes no sense ....
..  what would you suggest as an alternative.??

And ER... you talk selling infrastructure...??

that  is irrelevant...
except where it relates to the ' business model ' of government...  where making a profit is all that matters..
.. rather than the government providing the services which are its raison d'etre.
Why have a GOVERNMENT at all...according to you??   lets just pay business people for everything.  What is your point...??

Emma wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 1:17am:

Quantum wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:07am: Emma wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:52am: Qube... I think you'd find... IF you looked... that Governments  in SURPLUS  as a rule of the day.....are virtually NON-EXISTENT    ..AROUND the WORLD,  historically... AND presently. This  current touted philosophy of govt budget surplus  is just a smacking furphy.. a red herring... a pile of crap.. in other words.. Show me ONE country, where a government has run a surplus for decades.. YOU WONT FIND ONE... nor should you. Government IS NOT about profit, surplus etc..  its about looking after,  and caring for the people who voted them in. Shiote on surplus,, when Australians live hungry on the streets,  and the mentally ill are abandoned, along with  the aged.,.and the young brain-damaged..not to mention un-supported returned vets....    a SURPLUS is more important to you ... Then I ask again, why bother with tax? Why sell any infrastructure? For that matter, if the government owns something, why charge money for the use of it? Land rates, water, electricity, public transport, phone/internet etc. If it is still government owned, why charge for anything? What is the point of collecting any money for anything if a government intends to just borrow/print whatever it needs without end? Think about it. Quote: and you and your foul ilk blame other victims for it.  Bunch of feckless opinionated ignorant  biased creeps. 1:00am... still a judgemental total smacking bitch to anyone who dares make you think about something from another perspective. THINK ABOUT IT??  I have  .. long time.. hey  I worked for TREASURY.. Do you understand THAT.?

I don't believe that, but it would explain a lot about this country.


Quote:

Perhaps YOU might explain , then... how the country runs...?? Your reply makes no sense .... ..  what would you suggest as an alternative.??

Your argument is that surplus is not needed and is in fact a bad thing. Your argument is also that debt doesn't matter and that every government runs in debt. So why even have a budget if none of it matters? Why collect money for anything if the amount of debt doesn't matter?

Lets put it in simple terms;

Government collects $5 in tax
Government spends $10
Government spent $5 more than it has
Budget is now $5 over.
The country is now in $5 debt.

Following so far? good. So why collect the $5 tax is the first place. Just go $10 over budget. According to you the debt means sweet bugger all anyway, so why even bother having any income through taxes?

Quantum wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 1:33am:

Emma wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:17am: Quantum wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:07am: Emma wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:52am: Qube... I think you'd find... IF you looked... that Governments  in SURPLUS  as a rule of the day.....are virtually NON-EXISTENT    ..AROUND the WORLD,  historically... AND presently. This  current touted philosophy of govt budget surplus  is just a smacking furphy.. a red herring... a pile of crap.. in other words.. Show me ONE country, where a government has run a surplus for decades.. YOU WONT FIND ONE... nor should you. Government IS NOT about profit, surplus etc..  its about looking after,  and caring for the people who voted them in. Shiote on surplus,, when Australians live hungry on the streets,  and the mentally ill are abandoned, along with  the aged.,.and the young brain-damaged..not to mention un-supported returned vets....    a SURPLUS is more important to you ... Then I ask again, why bother with tax? Why sell any infrastructure? For that matter, if the government owns something, why charge money for the use of it? Land rates, water, electricity, public transport, phone/internet etc. If it is still government owned, why charge for anything? What is the point of collecting any money for anything if a government intends to just borrow/print whatever it needs without end? Think about it. Quote: and you and your foul ilk blame other victims for it.  Bunch of feckless opinionated ignorant  biased creeps. 1:00am... still a judgemental total smacking bitch to anyone who dares make you think about something from another perspective. THINK ABOUT IT??  I have  .. long time.. hey  I worked for TREASURY.. Do you understand THAT.? I don't believe that, but it would explain a lot about this country. [quote]Perhaps YOU might explain , then... how the country runs...?? Your reply makes no sense .... ..  what would you suggest as an alternative.??

Your argument is that surplus is not needed and is in fact a bad thing. Your argument is also that debt doesn't matter and that every government runs in debt. So why even have a budget if none of it matters? Why collect money for anything if the amount of debt doesn't matter?

Lets put it in simple terms;

Government collects $5 in tax
Government spends $10
Government spent $5 more than it has
Budget is now $5 over.
The country is now in $5 debt.

Following so far? good. So why collect the $5 tax is the first place. Just go $10 over budget. According to you the debt means sweet bugger all anyway, so why even bother having any income through taxes?

[/quote]

??    your logic eludes me..  in fact ..your lack of logic  astounds me.
Your alternative...??  Nope ? don't have one..?

So  the Country just trundles along,  and somehow, magically  things are done.. roads are paid for,, health care is funded,, from some OTHER  source?
Perhaps you think Business donates all this??    ::)
I ask again... HOW  would YOU fund necessary infrastructure ??
Donations from the public..??? :D

lets try another analogue

Say  ... you purchase a home under a contract with one of our world record profiteering Banks ...

..you don't actually have $450,000 dollars lying around... in fact.. you have never had that much cash on hand in your whole working life...
so..

you borrow money..from one of our world record banks,  on the understanding that access to that money has a COST. That cost includes admin fees, stamp duty, legal expenses, interest.. etc.

With me so far..??

You now have responsibility for paying for that asset you have acquired..because it gives you and your loved ones shelter..and you have an expectation that over time,  your expenditure and on-going upkeep expenses will result in your owning an asset worth far  in excess of the original price you paid,  and the on-going expenses.
This means you are a good consumer,  who pays on time and who has positive assets.

SO  .. this model is not representative of government process.. this is not analogous.
  Nor is business profit .
WHY...??

Perhaps if you think about it.. you might get the answer.

Emma wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 2:09am:

Quantum wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:33am: Emma wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:17am: Quantum wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:07am: Emma wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:52am: Qube... I think you'd find... IF you looked... that Governments  in SURPLUS  as a rule of the day.....are virtually NON-EXISTENT    ..AROUND the WORLD,  historically... AND presently. This  current touted philosophy of govt budget surplus  is just a smacking furphy.. a red herring... a pile of crap.. in other words.. Show me ONE country, where a government has run a surplus for decades.. YOU WONT FIND ONE... nor should you. Government IS NOT about profit, surplus etc..  its about looking after,  and caring for the people who voted them in. Shiote on surplus,, when Australians live hungry on the streets,  and the mentally ill are abandoned, along with  the aged.,.and the young brain-damaged..not to mention un-supported returned vets....    a SURPLUS is more important to you ... Then I ask again, why bother with tax? Why sell any infrastructure? For that matter, if the government owns something, why charge money for the use of it? Land rates, water, electricity, public transport, phone/internet etc. If it is still government owned, why charge for anything? What is the point of collecting any money for anything if a government intends to just borrow/print whatever it needs without end? Think about it. Quote: and you and your foul ilk blame other victims for it.  Bunch of feckless opinionated ignorant  biased creeps. 1:00am... still a judgemental total smacking bitch to anyone who dares make you think about something from another perspective. THINK ABOUT IT??  I have  .. long time.. hey  I worked for TREASURY.. Do you understand THAT.? I don't believe that, but it would explain a lot about this country. [quote]Perhaps YOU might explain , then... how the country runs...?? Your reply makes no sense .... ..  what would you suggest as an alternative.?? Your argument is that surplus is not needed and is in fact a bad thing. Your argument is also that debt doesn't matter and that every government runs in debt. So why even have a budget if none of it matters? Why collect money for anything if the amount of debt doesn't matter? Lets put it in simple terms; Government collects $5 in tax Government spends $10 Government spent $5 more than it has Budget is now $5 over. The country is now in $5 debt. Following so far? good. So why collect the $5 tax is the first place. Just go $10 over budget. According to you the debt means sweet bugger all anyway, so why even bother having any income through taxes?

??    your logic eludes me..  in fact ..your lack of logic  astounds me.
Your alternative...??  Nope ? don't have one..?

So  the Country just trundles along,  and somehow, magically  things are done.. roads are paid for,, health care is funded,, from some OTHER  source?
Perhaps you think Business donates all this??    ::)
I ask again... HOW  would YOU fund necessary infrastructure ??
Donations from the public..??? :D


[/quote]

FFS, how thick are you?

I am not advocating any change. I am not giving an alternative. I am not saying to stop tax. What I'm asking you is what is the point of taxes or charging anyone for services if debt doesn't matter? If a government can just keep spending more than what it has got, why bother getting any in the first place? 

Emma wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 2:09am:

Quantum wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:33am: Emma wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:17am: Quantum wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:07am: Emma wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:52am: Qube... I think you'd find... IF you looked... that Governments  in SURPLUS  as a rule of the day.....are virtually NON-EXISTENT    ..AROUND the WORLD,  historically... AND presently. This  current touted philosophy of govt budget surplus  is just a smacking furphy.. a red herring... a pile of crap.. in other words.. Show me ONE country, where a government has run a surplus for decades.. YOU WONT FIND ONE... nor should you. Government IS NOT about profit, surplus etc..  its about looking after,  and caring for the people who voted them in. Shiote on surplus,, when Australians live hungry on the streets,  and the mentally ill are abandoned, along with  the aged.,.and the young brain-damaged..not to mention un-supported returned vets....    a SURPLUS is more important to you ... Then I ask again, why bother with tax? Why sell any infrastructure? For that matter, if the government owns something, why charge money for the use of it? Land rates, water, electricity, public transport, phone/internet etc. If it is still government owned, why charge for anything? What is the point of collecting any money for anything if a government intends to just borrow/print whatever it needs without end? Think about it. Quote: and you and your foul ilk blame other victims for it.  Bunch of feckless opinionated ignorant  biased creeps. 1:00am... still a judgemental total smacking bitch to anyone who dares make you think about something from another perspective. THINK ABOUT IT??  I have  .. long time.. hey  I worked for TREASURY.. Do you understand THAT.? I don't believe that, but it would explain a lot about this country. [quote]Perhaps YOU might explain , then... how the country runs...?? Your reply makes no sense .... ..  what would you suggest as an alternative.?? Your argument is that surplus is not needed and is in fact a bad thing. Your argument is also that debt doesn't matter and that every government runs in debt. So why even have a budget if none of it matters? Why collect money for anything if the amount of debt doesn't matter? Lets put it in simple terms; Government collects $5 in tax Government spends $10 Government spent $5 more than it has Budget is now $5 over. The country is now in $5 debt. Following so far? good. So why collect the $5 tax is the first place. Just go $10 over budget. According to you the debt means sweet bugger all anyway, so why even bother having any income through taxes?

??    your logic eludes me..  in fact ..your lack of logic  astounds me.
Your alternative...??  Nope ? don't have one..?

So  the Country just trundles along,  and somehow, magically  things are done.. roads are paid for,, health care is funded,, from some OTHER  source?
Perhaps you think Business donates all this??    ::)
I ask again... HOW  would YOU fund necessary infrastructure ??
Donations from the public..??? :D


[/quote]
God help Australia if you still work for the Treasury, god help us if people like you work in government. You people have no idea.
With out business, how the hell do you think this country runs, how the hell do you think people get paid, how the hell do think taxes are paid.
Do you understand what recession is? Do you understand what high employment is, do you understand what a depression is.
This is my great country and I and many others don't care much for comparisons. As you like to compare our great country to other countries, I compare your poor economic ruling to a  Communist ruled country and again have no idea.
People like you should be charged with treason and theft of public taxes and put to death!

Emma wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 2:28am:

lets try another analogue Say  ... you purchase a home under a contract with one of our world record profiteering Banks ... ..you don't actually have $450,000 dollars lying around... in fact.. you have never had that much cash on hand in your whole working life... so.. you borrow money..from one of our world record banks,  on the understanding that access to that money has a COST. That cost includes admin fees, stamp duty, legal expenses, interest.. etc. With me so far..?? You now have responsibility for paying for that asset you have acquired..because it gives you and your loved ones shelter..and you have an expectation that over time,  your expenditure and on-going upkeep expenses will result in your owning an asset worth far  in excess of the original price you paid,  and the on-going expenses. This means you are a good consumer,  who pays on time and who has positive assets. SO  .. this model is not representative of government process.. this is not analogous.   Nor is business profit . WHY...?? Perhaps if you think about it.. you might get the answer.

Under your stupid methodology, the bank would not give you a loan in the first place, because under your government the people have no need for business, therefore there are no employees, therefore one has no income, therefore no one pays taxes, therefore the country is in ruins, therefore there is no infrastructure, there is nothing.
Please stop your stupid posting you disgusting sod!

Emma wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 1:17am:

Quantum wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 1:07am: Emma wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:52am: Qube... I think you'd find... IF you looked... that Governments  in SURPLUS  as a rule of the day.....are virtually NON-EXISTENT    ..AROUND the WORLD,  historically... AND presently. This  current touted philosophy of govt budget surplus  is just a smacking furphy.. a red herring... a pile of crap.. in other words.. Show me ONE country, where a government has run a surplus for decades.. YOU WONT FIND ONE... nor should you. Government IS NOT about profit, surplus etc..  its about looking after,  and caring for the people who voted them in. Shiote on surplus,, when Australians live hungry on the streets,  and the mentally ill are abandoned, along with  the aged.,.and the young brain-damaged..not to mention un-supported returned vets....    a SURPLUS is more important to you ... Then I ask again, why bother with tax? Why sell any infrastructure? For that matter, if the government owns something, why charge money for the use of it? Land rates, water, electricity, public transport, phone/internet etc. If it is still government owned, why charge for anything? What is the point of collecting any money for anything if a government intends to just borrow/print whatever it needs without end? Think about it. Quote: and you and your foul ilk blame other victims for it.  Bunch of feckless opinionated ignorant  biased creeps. 1:00am... still a judgemental total smacking bitch to anyone who dares make you think about something from another perspective. THINK ABOUT IT??  I have  .. long time.. hey  I worked for TREASURY.. Do you understand THAT.? Perhaps YOU might explain , then... how the country runs...?? Your reply makes no sense .... ..  what would you suggest as an alternative.??

nobody believes you worked for Treasury.  You struggle to simply write a coherent sentence, nevermind do an analysis of anything.

Emma doesn't make a lot of sense, does she.  Just seems to think that we should spend, spend, spend and debt doesn't matter.  Apparently the Greek and Spanish experience hasn't yet filtered thru the haze that passes for her mind.

Emma Peel, Skippy, and Spot of Borg are the three smartest posters here. They will lead the progressive revolution and smash the bourgeois. 

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:00pm:

Emma Peel, Skippy, and Spot of Borg are the three smartest posters here. They will lead the progressive revolution and smash the bourgeois.

Don't forget Corporate Whitey and True Colours. They will save us all from the evils of logic and common sense.

Quantum wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 12:36pm:

Postmodern Trendoid wrote on Aug 20th, 2013 at 12:00pm: Emma Peel, Skippy, and Spot of Borg are the three smartest posters here. They will lead the progressive revolution and smash the bourgeois.  Don't forget Corporate Whitey and True Colours. They will save us all from the evils of logic and common sense.

and they do it so well!

Calanen wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 12:11am:

Quote: like Murdoch, the western bag,  and other's who rape their country have much more in their arsenal ..because..?? they have the money... Murdoch's empire is one of the best things that an Australian has ever done, he owns FOX an American icon. He employs something like 25,000 people, and people who work there, love working there. He sells newspapers and makes TV shows - how exactly is he 'raping the country' by giving so many people a job? He hasn't 'raped' anything, but grown an international business that has become worldwide. The other Australian success story is Westfield, the own shopping centres and are well known in America too. I've known a lot of people who have worked for Rupert, and they all speak highly of him and loved working for him. Not many bosses can say that. Hating the guy just because he is rich, is just clichéd.

great post

longweekend58 wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 9:04am:

Emma wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 2:34am: Matty..??  that is the smallest bit of BIG crap I have ever read.  You are fooling yourself if you believe THAT. Freedom of Speech and Expression...???  That is s'posed to mean something??   Why isn't Assange here in AUSTRALIA..??  iF YOU BELIEVE THAT!! then THE NUMERO UNO task for this wonderful new government you perceive  MUST BE... BRING ASSANGE HOME... Isn't the US conservative and right-wing..?? YES it definitely is..  Oh yeah and they really love their freedom of speech..as long as it doesn't say anything real.  Proof?.... Manning ...Snowden...  I do not want Australia to be a US clone.. we ARE worthy... despite what our pollies are doing.......so we need a new crowd.... not the old school fheads that have governed for far too  long.   I'd actually rather have a multi-party parliament, which HAS TO seek consensus across the range of political views to pass Law. That would be a democracy. You must be SOB's wife/daughter/pet.  You are making about the same level of sense.

:D :D :D
this may not be far from the truth

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 16^th, 2013 at 7:29am:

Quantum wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 2:08am: Emma wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 1:29am: Would it??  Really?? At least there would be a clear choice.......... You're underestimating the Greens. There would still be a few gays and idiots willing to vote for them. But how would a choice between two idiotic extremist parties that are unable to put forward a candidate with an IQ of more than 80 be good for Australia? Liberal and Labor at least see eye to eye on about 90% of all matters, and even then that final 10% of issues is where all the partisan fights between supporters comes from. If 50% of Australians favoured Greens and 50% favoured One Nation, the extremist rhetoric from both parties would probably cause a civil war.  @ the moment its a choice between 2 extremist parties that are exactly the same. If it was those 2 @ least they would be different. the parties used to be different and nobody called them extremist. Its just the last decade or so they have all drifted to the right and become indistinguishable except 1 party is more abusive than the other. SOB

you are f*ing kidding.
ask a yank to read their policies. they would be extreme left in the states.

abbotts almost a communist.
rudds just a f*ing narcissist ;)

aquascoot wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 1:30pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Aug 16th, 2013 at 7:29am: Quantum wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 2:08am: Emma wrote on Aug 15th, 2013 at 1:29am: Would it??  Really?? At least there would be a clear choice.......... You're underestimating the Greens. There would still be a few gays and idiots willing to vote for them. But how would a choice between two idiotic extremist parties that are unable to put forward a candidate with an IQ of more than 80 be good for Australia? Liberal and Labor at least see eye to eye on about 90% of all matters, and even then that final 10% of issues is where all the partisan fights between supporters comes from. If 50% of Australians favoured Greens and 50% favoured One Nation, the extremist rhetoric from both parties would probably cause a civil war.  @ the moment its a choice between 2 extremist parties that are exactly the same. If it was those 2 @ least they would be different. the parties used to be different and nobody called them extremist. Its just the last decade or so they have all drifted to the right and become indistinguishable except 1 party is more abusive than the other. SOB you are f*ing kidding. ask a yank to read their policies. they would be extreme left in the states. abbotts almost a communist. rudds just a f*ing narcissist ;)

it is idiotic to call our parties 'extremist'.  But then again, SOB is an idiot.

My my isn't this fun??

GENX  ??  You are the fool...you have such simplistic views...  but hey  spoken with Gusto..!! :) Can't fault you on your passion...only its subject.. and.. just.. you need a bit more wisdom ... and  err sorry bub that comes with life experience...!

and you aquascoot ..  oh.. you'd love to work for Murdoch... he is such a good boss..  ::) ::)  This is YOUR MESSAGE.

My dear friends,  there is more to life than being a worker bee...
This culture you cherish is a failure.  The facts are written on the earth we live on,  and are in the process of destroying.

Enabled by our politicians..  unless of course you are also  in denial about climate change.
Strangely,  and v sadly IMO the 'POLLS'  ..sacrosanct agents of change  ::) :P
are saying... the Environment isn't even on the list of major issues.. 

WTF..??
Ah HA  the power of the Pen is mightier than the Sword.

well... I say again

Enough is ENOUGH.....

Emma wrote on Aug 20^th, 2013 at 9:57pm:

My my isn't this fun?? GENX  ??  You are the fool...you have such simplistic views...  but hey  spoken with Gusto..!! :) Can't fault you on your passion...only its subject.. and.. just.. you need a bit more wisdom ... and  err sorry bub that comes with life experience...! and you aquascoot ..  oh.. you'd love to work for Murdoch... he is such a good boss..  ::) ::)  This is YOUR MESSAGE. My dear friends,  there is more to life than being a worker bee... This culture you cherish is a failure.  The facts are written on the earth we live on,  and are in the process of destroying. Enabled by our politicians..  unless of course you are also  in denial about climate change. Strangely,  and v sadly IMO the 'POLLS'  ..sacrosanct agents of change  ::) :P are saying... the Environment isn't even on the list of major issues..  WTF..?? Ah HA  the power of the Pen is mightier than the Sword. well... I say again Enough is ENOUGH.....

but not in YOUR case.  the pen has to make sense for it to be a weapon and you make close to no sense... ever.

frankly longweekend58  :)

I am pleased to hear it..!!

.. if you and your ilk,  were able to follow ..I'd be disappointed,  'cos that 'd mean you are a deep thinker and smarter than I had thought....   

your replies  are  always reassuring...  :D

Emma wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 5:42pm:

frankly longweekend58  :) I am pleased to hear it..!! .. if you and your ilk,  were able to follow ..I'd be disappointed,  'cos that 'd mean you are a deep thinker and smarter than I had thought....    your replies  are  always reassuring...  :D

you are a stupid, obtuse twit.  don't flatter yourself. 

see Shorty??  thats your problem...

you like to tell people what to do ..and think...  too bad eh?

just so that you know...
I will flatter myself, or any other c8nt I choose...
Yes I will.

you perhaps should  keep your boorish bullshit for someone who cares..?

Emma wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 6:06pm:

see Shorty??  thats your problem... you like to tell people what to do ..and think...  too bad eh? just so that you know... I will flatter myself, or any other c8nt I choose... Yes I will. you perhaps should  keep your boorish bullshit for someone who cares..?

blah blah blah...  when you next want to enter or start a debate, why don't you pass your post to a friend first so they can edit it so that it makes sense.  your attempt in this thread was mind-boggingly bad.

huh 
who made you the judge ... ?
I find many/most of your posts abysmal...  for their content...
the content... 
hey and sometimes your written communication isn't up to scratch either .

You claim you are paid for writing..??
for what..??
the classifieds..??

in fact I'm sure we'd all agree
that the spelling standards  eg in our newspapers,   is getting dumb,  and dumber. :(

Emma wrote on Aug 21^st, 2013 at 6:56pm:

in fact I'm sure we'd all agree that the spelling standards  eg in our newspapers,   is getting dumb,  and dumber. :(

Agreed.

They need to buy themselves one of these:


http://www.adriansnood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/a-mistake-on-a-sign-in-a-charity-book-and-record-shop-in-burslem-stoke-on-trent1.jpeg

indeed gp  :)

I always go back to my Dictionary ,,if I am unsure of the spelling.
Of course... sometimes I am sure ..  :)  so I don't check ...and hey I can be wrong.  :)

doh

we see what we want to see....  JUST NOTICED the spelling ::)

Agreed.

They need to buy themselves one of these:


http://www.adriansnood.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/a-mistake-on-a-sign-in-a-charity-book-and-record-shop-in-burslem-stoke-on-trent1.jpeg[/quote]

Never ceases to amaze me how you manage to find the most appropriate image or gif to suit the post, how do you do it ?I can search for hours and never see these.  :) :) :) :) :)

Hahahahahahaha!

SOB

http://spotofborg.com/files/persecution5.jpg