Australian Politics Forum
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl
General Discussion >> Federal Politics >> Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1378556222

Message started by Maqqa on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:17pm

Title: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Maqqa on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:17pm
This is an indictment on Rudd the selfish self-absorb selfie seeker

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Dnarever on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:19pm

Maqqa wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:17pm:
This is an indictment on Rudd the selfish self-absorb selfie seeker


More an indictment of Abbott - the first thing he had to say - what a grub.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Greens_Win on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:20pm
Yep, Bott has no class.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Maqqa on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:25pm

Dnarever wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:19pm:

Maqqa wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:17pm:
This is an indictment on Rudd the selfish self-absorb selfie seeker


More an indictment of Abbott - the first thing he had to say - what a grub.


I see

You are blaming Abbott for the result!!!  ;D ;D ;D

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Bam on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:26pm
And yet only lost about 15 seats, why? The minor parties and independents polled one vote in eight, or more than one vote in five if the Greens are included. When was the last time that one vote in five went to a party other than the ALP or a Coalition party?

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Sprintcyclist on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:43pm

What a whipping.

And the spazzo lefties cheered on the architect of their demise.

they merit sterilization

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Bam on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:44pm
Yet the ALP polled more primary votes than any other party.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Sprintcyclist on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:46pm

shows a leftys vote is worth 1/4 of anyone elses.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by bobbythebat1 on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:48pm
Labor will come back to power - they always do.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by skippy. on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:52pm

Maqqa wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:17pm:
This is an indictment on Rudd the selfish self-absorb selfie seeker

Abbott already telling lies as PM. It is the lowest since the second world war, not one hundred years, ABBOTT is a lying dog, still.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Sprintcyclist on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:01pm

Bobby. wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:48pm:
Labor will come back to power - they always do.


a dog returns to its vomit

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by longweekend58 on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:02pm

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:26pm:
And yet only lost about 15 seats, why? The minor parties and independents polled one vote in eight, or more than one vote in five if the Greens are included. When was the last time that one vote in five went to a party other than the ALP or a Coalition party?


actually looks closer to a loss of 20 seats and ~40 seat majority.  pretty good result!

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by longweekend58 on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:03pm

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:44pm:
Yet the ALP polled more primary votes than any other party.


pitiful.  they were massacred by the COALITION.

get over it loser.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Ahovking on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:03pm
Labor's primary lowest in 100 years, as it should be!!!

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by skippy. on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:07pm

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:44pm:
Yet the ALP polled more primary votes than any other party.


pitiful.  they were massacred by the COALITION.

get over it loser.

Still a bitter old man even in triumph.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by John Smith on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:08pm
and the libs could still only manage a swing of 1.8%  ..... imagine the swing if they'd had a leader people liked

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by John Smith on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:10pm

skippy. wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:44pm:
Yet the ALP polled more primary votes than any other party.


pitiful.  they were massacred by the COALITION.

get over it loser.

Still a bitter old man even in triumph.


he'll always be a bitter old man ... he can't help it

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Sprintcyclist on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:19pm

John Smith wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:08pm:
and the libs could still only manage a swing of 1.8%  ..... imagine the swing if they'd had a leader people liked


idiot - the leftards treated the election like a 'talent quest'.
and gave us the worst govt in living memory.

the right is different, get used to it.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by longweekend58 on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:19pm

skippy. wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:44pm:
Yet the ALP polled more primary votes than any other party.


pitiful.  they were massacred by the COALITION.

get over it loser.

Still a bitter old man even in triumph.


wrong word.  not bitter.  TRIUMPHANT

try again, loser.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by John Smith on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:21pm

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:19pm:

skippy. wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:44pm:
Yet the ALP polled more primary votes than any other party.


pitiful.  they were massacred by the COALITION.

get over it loser.

Still a bitter old man even in triumph.


wrong word.  not bitter.  TRIUMPHANT

try again, loser.


nope, bitter describes you perfectly

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by John Smith on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:22pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:19pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:08pm:
and the libs could still only manage a swing of 1.8%  ..... imagine the swing if they'd had a leader people liked


idiot - the leftards treated the election like a 'talent quest'.
and gave us the worst govt in living memory.

the right is different, get used to it.


you have an aversion to the truth do you? What do you think the swing would be if someone like Costello had put his hand up?

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Bam on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:28pm

Sprintcyclist wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:01pm:

Bobby. wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:48pm:
Labor will come back to power - they always do.


a dog returns to its vomit

Abbott won the election. ;D

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Bam on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:30pm

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:44pm:
Yet the ALP polled more primary votes than any other party.


pitiful.  they were massacred by the COALITION.

get over it loser.

You are such an ungracious winner.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by John Smith on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:32pm

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:44pm:
Yet the ALP polled more primary votes than any other party.


pitiful.  they were massacred by the COALITION.

get over it loser.

You are such an ungracious winner.


he's ungracious in all aspects of his life, win or lose

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Sprintcyclist on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:34pm

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:44pm:
Yet the ALP polled more primary votes than any other party.


pitiful.  they were massacred by the COALITION.

get over it loser.

You are such an ungracious winner.


show me a good loser, I'll show you a loser.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by PZ547 on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:35pm
Ok.  You whining Labor Losers have run your time now


It's no longer about corrupt, incompetent Labor crooks

Tonight is about the Liberal win

and Labor and Rudd hitting the kerb


You're behaving like five years olds

Which is the mental age of Labor supporters


Go and sulk in your bedrooms


I'm sick of your pouting and crying


Go on.  Buzz off

like Rudd

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by John Smith on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:37pm

PZ547 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:35pm:
Ok.  You whining Labor Losers have run your time now


It's no longer about corrupt, incompetent Labor crooks

Tonight is about the Liberal win

and Labor and Rudd hitting the kerb


You're behaving like five years olds

Which is the mental age of Labor supporters


Go and sulk in your bedrooms


I'm sick of your pouting and crying


Go on.  Buzz off

like Rudd


Is it past your bedtime? You seem to be having an tanty ......

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by longweekend58 on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:39pm

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:30pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:03pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 10:44pm:
Yet the ALP polled more primary votes than any other party.


pitiful.  they were massacred by the COALITION.

get over it loser.

You are such an ungracious winner.


only to you, you arrogant sod.  If you were still ultimate dictator on that failed website you would still have just 6 posters all gratuitously agreeing with you.  Here you have to earn your strips.

And labor supporters have been extraordinarily ugly people these last 3 years.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by Bam on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:40pm

John Smith wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:08pm:
and the libs could still only manage a swing of 1.8%  ..... imagine the swing if they'd had a leader people liked

This gives them not much of a buffer.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by PZ547 on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:41pm
.

Labor supporters are still ugly

Whine, bitch, whine, cry, waaa waaaa


Labor --- you lost


It's not about YOU


You lost


Deal with it



Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by longweekend58 on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:44pm

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:08pm:
and the libs could still only manage a swing of 1.8%  ..... imagine the swing if they'd had a leader people liked

This gives them not much of a buffer.


11% on primary votes is not much of a buffer?  6% on 2PP is not much of a buffer??

dream on, pebbles.

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by John Smith on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:50pm

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:08pm:
and the libs could still only manage a swing of 1.8%  ..... imagine the swing if they'd had a leader people liked

This gives them not much of a buffer.


11% on primary votes is not much of a buffer?  6% on 2PP is not much of a buffer??

dream on, pebbles.


easy come, easy go. What was the buffer when Rudd won in 2007? didn't take long for that to whittle away

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by John Smith on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:51pm

PZ547 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:41pm:
.

Labor supporters are still ugly

Whine, bitch, whine, cry, waaa waaaa


Labor --- you lost


It's not about YOU


You lost


Deal with it


If it's not about labor supporters, why are all your posts directed at labor supporters? make up your mind!

Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by PZ547 on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:53pm
.

Aussie Labor and Greens supporters

Captured the market on bitter pills

and appear to have overdosed on them


Hilarious

Tossing dummy spits in an online forum


as if that will rid them of their bile

or change the election results


Hey, losers ----- narcissism time is ovuh

It's now about Liberals and Lib supporters



Title: Re: Labor's primary lowest in 100 years
Post by longweekend58 on Sep 8th, 2013 at 12:03am

John Smith wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:50pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:44pm:

Bam wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:40pm:

John Smith wrote on Sep 7th, 2013 at 11:08pm:
and the libs could still only manage a swing of 1.8%  ..... imagine the swing if they'd had a leader people liked

This gives them not much of a buffer.


11% on primary votes is not much of a buffer?  6% on 2PP is not much of a buffer??

dream on, pebbles.


easy come, easy go. What was the buffer when Rudd won in 2007? didn't take long for that to whittle away


Rudd has the second smallest winning margin ever for a change of govt.  didn't know that, did you?

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