Quote:

Mike Kelly withdraws from Senate race Queanbeyan-based Mike Kelly is pulling out of the contest to fill the Senate position vacated by former Foreign Minister Bob Carr. Dr Kelly made the announcement on Tuesday, following a meeting in Sydney on Monday evening of the Labor Party’s Right faction. It is understood the faction went ahead with the plan to endorse another defeated Labor MP, Deborah O’Neill, who is against gay marriage, for the position. The decision is expected to be ratified by the NSW ALP administrative committee on Wednesday. The factional win could spark widespread criticism that the Labor Party has not changed its ways, despite its massive election defeat. Dr Kelly held Eden-Monaro for six years and was minister for defence materiel in the Labor government before being narrowly defeated at the election. He had offered to serve in the Senate for only three years, and leave the upper chamber to contest his former electorate at the next election. Mr Carr was parachuted into the Senate and the plum role of foreign minister 18 months ago by then prime minister Julia Gillard. He has resigned just six weeks after winning his seat in the election that put the Labor Party into opposition. In his final speech as a politician, to the United Nations Association last week, he endorsed Dr Kelly for his senate seat. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, the largest trade union in Australia with about 230,000 members, is backing Ms O’Neill for the senate vacancy, which will be filled by the NSW Right. The union’s national secretary Joe de Bruyn had slammed the Gillard Labor government for ‘‘pandering’’ to the Greens on gay marriage. While Ms O’Neill is being promoted on gender grounds, Australian Workers Union boss Paul Howes suggested his pro-gay marriage views were a factor in opposition to him within the Right when he pulled out of the Senate race. Ms O’Neill spoke in favour of a conscience vote in federal Parliament, and against gay marriage, at Labor’s national conference two years ago. ‘‘We prize marriage and understand it very certainly as a union between a man and a woman,’’ she said then. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/mike-kelly-withdraws-from-senate-race-20131029-2wdcb.html

How quaint must life be in the carefully delineated world of the Australian Labor Party; the party of ideas, the enlightened and progressive party. Rewards are now being handed out based on what is between your legs. If you own a vagina you must be put upon, it stands to reason and under those circumstances you will get special consideration. If you put upon women you must own a penis and are therefore under a cloud of doubt as to your ability deal with any situation in an even-handed manner. In a normal world Kelly would give O’Neill a stone and a beating but alas in this case Kelly’s penis is too great a handicap to overcome.

interesting isnt it.. ALP about 40.000 members


SDAEA.. union 250.00 members..

and they get the right to choose.who pops into the seat...why?? because that person will do their bidding thats why?

salad in wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 9:22am:

Quote: Mike Kelly withdraws from Senate race Queanbeyan-based Mike Kelly is pulling out of the contest to fill the Senate position vacated by former Foreign Minister Bob Carr. Dr Kelly made the announcement on Tuesday, following a meeting in Sydney on Monday evening of the Labor Party’s Right faction. It is understood the faction went ahead with the plan to endorse another defeated Labor MP, Deborah O’Neill, who is against gay marriage, for the position. The decision is expected to be ratified by the NSW ALP administrative committee on Wednesday. The factional win could spark widespread criticism that the Labor Party has not changed its ways, despite its massive election defeat. Dr Kelly held Eden-Monaro for six years and was minister for defence materiel in the Labor government before being narrowly defeated at the election. He had offered to serve in the Senate for only three years, and leave the upper chamber to contest his former electorate at the next election. Mr Carr was parachuted into the Senate and the plum role of foreign minister 18 months ago by then prime minister Julia Gillard. He has resigned just six weeks after winning his seat in the election that put the Labor Party into opposition. In his final speech as a politician, to the United Nations Association last week, he endorsed Dr Kelly for his senate seat. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, the largest trade union in Australia with about 230,000 members, is backing Ms O’Neill for the senate vacancy, which will be filled by the NSW Right. The union’s national secretary Joe de Bruyn had slammed the Gillard Labor government for ‘‘pandering’’ to the Greens on gay marriage. While Ms O’Neill is being promoted on gender grounds, Australian Workers Union boss Paul Howes suggested his pro-gay marriage views were a factor in opposition to him within the Right when he pulled out of the Senate race. Ms O’Neill spoke in favour of a conscience vote in federal Parliament, and against gay marriage, at Labor’s national conference two years ago. ‘‘We prize marriage and understand it very certainly as a union between a man and a woman,’’ she said then. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/mike-kelly-withdraws-from-senate-race-20131029-2wdcb.html How quaint must life be in the carefully delineated world of the Australian Labor Party; the party of ideas, the enlightened and progressive party. Rewards are now being handed out based on what is between your legs. If you own a vagina you must be put upon, it stands to reason and under those circumstances you will get special consideration. If you put upon women you must own a penis and are therefore under a cloud of doubt as to your ability deal with any situation in an even-handed manner. In a normal world Kelly would give O’Neill a stone and a beating but alas in this case Kelly’s penis is too great a handicap to overcome.

I could/can understand a complaint, if Labor Unions used undue influence on this or any other issue, BUT then to go on a rant about vagina's & penis's, just because the reporter says, "While Ms O’Neill is being promoted on gender grounds", is a long stretch.

I would think it "somewhat" unlikely that the reverse would get much of a run, If a male were proposed, either by Labor or the Libs!

....one for the quota

affirmative action in practice.

Did Ms O'neill  play hockey in the Olympics too by chance?

The coalition are full of vaginas so what is your point???

;) :) :)

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:17am:

salad in wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 9:22am: Quote: Mike Kelly withdraws from Senate race Queanbeyan-based Mike Kelly is pulling out of the contest to fill the Senate position vacated by former Foreign Minister Bob Carr. Dr Kelly made the announcement on Tuesday, following a meeting in Sydney on Monday evening of the Labor Party’s Right faction. It is understood the faction went ahead with the plan to endorse another defeated Labor MP, Deborah O’Neill, who is against gay marriage, for the position. The decision is expected to be ratified by the NSW ALP administrative committee on Wednesday. The factional win could spark widespread criticism that the Labor Party has not changed its ways, despite its massive election defeat. Dr Kelly held Eden-Monaro for six years and was minister for defence materiel in the Labor government before being narrowly defeated at the election. He had offered to serve in the Senate for only three years, and leave the upper chamber to contest his former electorate at the next election. Mr Carr was parachuted into the Senate and the plum role of foreign minister 18 months ago by then prime minister Julia Gillard. He has resigned just six weeks after winning his seat in the election that put the Labor Party into opposition. In his final speech as a politician, to the United Nations Association last week, he endorsed Dr Kelly for his senate seat. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, the largest trade union in Australia with about 230,000 members, is backing Ms O’Neill for the senate vacancy, which will be filled by the NSW Right. The union’s national secretary Joe de Bruyn had slammed the Gillard Labor government for ‘‘pandering’’ to the Greens on gay marriage. While Ms O’Neill is being promoted on gender grounds, Australian Workers Union boss Paul Howes suggested his pro-gay marriage views were a factor in opposition to him within the Right when he pulled out of the Senate race. Ms O’Neill spoke in favour of a conscience vote in federal Parliament, and against gay marriage, at Labor’s national conference two years ago. ‘‘We prize marriage and understand it very certainly as a union between a man and a woman,’’ she said then. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/mike-kelly-withdraws-from-senate-race-20131029-2wdcb.html How quaint must life be in the carefully delineated world of the Australian Labor Party; the party of ideas, the enlightened and progressive party. Rewards are now being handed out based on what is between your legs. If you own a vagina you must be put upon, it stands to reason and under those circumstances you will get special consideration. If you put upon women you must own a penis and are therefore under a cloud of doubt as to your ability deal with any situation in an even-handed manner. In a normal world Kelly would give O’Neill a stone and a beating but alas in this case Kelly’s penis is too great a handicap to overcome. I could/can understand a complaint, if Labor Unions used undue influence on this or any other issue, BUT then to go on a rant about vagina's & penis's, just because the reporter says, "While Ms O’Neill is being promoted on gender grounds", is a long stretch. I would think it "somewhat" unlikely that the reverse would get much of a run, If a male were proposed, either by Labor or the Libs!

You contradict yourself there. She is being promoted solely based on the fact she is a woman and not a man. So given this, while it may be a bit crass, it is perfectly relevant for the conversation to include references to the vagina. Also, I would like to think that if a man got a job over a woman in this situation because he was a man and not a woman, there would be a similar uproar. Thank goodness Abbott chooses people in his ministry based on competence, not whether or not they sit down to pee!

Armchair_Politician wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:38am:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:17am: salad in wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 9:22am: Quote: Mike Kelly withdraws from Senate race Queanbeyan-based Mike Kelly is pulling out of the contest to fill the Senate position vacated by former Foreign Minister Bob Carr. Dr Kelly made the announcement on Tuesday, following a meeting in Sydney on Monday evening of the Labor Party’s Right faction. It is understood the faction went ahead with the plan to endorse another defeated Labor MP, Deborah O’Neill, who is against gay marriage, for the position. The decision is expected to be ratified by the NSW ALP administrative committee on Wednesday. The factional win could spark widespread criticism that the Labor Party has not changed its ways, despite its massive election defeat. Dr Kelly held Eden-Monaro for six years and was minister for defence materiel in the Labor government before being narrowly defeated at the election. He had offered to serve in the Senate for only three years, and leave the upper chamber to contest his former electorate at the next election. Mr Carr was parachuted into the Senate and the plum role of foreign minister 18 months ago by then prime minister Julia Gillard. He has resigned just six weeks after winning his seat in the election that put the Labor Party into opposition. In his final speech as a politician, to the United Nations Association last week, he endorsed Dr Kelly for his senate seat. The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees’ Association, the largest trade union in Australia with about 230,000 members, is backing Ms O’Neill for the senate vacancy, which will be filled by the NSW Right. The union’s national secretary Joe de Bruyn had slammed the Gillard Labor government for ‘‘pandering’’ to the Greens on gay marriage. While Ms O’Neill is being promoted on gender grounds, Australian Workers Union boss Paul Howes suggested his pro-gay marriage views were a factor in opposition to him within the Right when he pulled out of the Senate race. Ms O’Neill spoke in favour of a conscience vote in federal Parliament, and against gay marriage, at Labor’s national conference two years ago. ‘‘We prize marriage and understand it very certainly as a union between a man and a woman,’’ she said then. http://www.canberratimes.com.au/act-news/mike-kelly-withdraws-from-senate-race-20131029-2wdcb.html How quaint must life be in the carefully delineated world of the Australian Labor Party; the party of ideas, the enlightened and progressive party. Rewards are now being handed out based on what is between your legs. If you own a vagina you must be put upon, it stands to reason and under those circumstances you will get special consideration. If you put upon women you must own a penis and are therefore under a cloud of doubt as to your ability deal with any situation in an even-handed manner. In a normal world Kelly would give O’Neill a stone and a beating but alas in this case Kelly’s penis is too great a handicap to overcome. I could/can understand a complaint, if Labor Unions used undue influence on this or any other issue, BUT then to go on a rant about vagina's & penis's, just because the reporter says, "While Ms O’Neill is being promoted on gender grounds", is a long stretch. I would think it "somewhat" unlikely that the reverse would get much of a run, If a male were proposed, either by Labor or the Libs! You contradict yourself there. She is being promoted solely based on the fact she is a woman and not a man. So given this, while it may be a bit crass, it is perfectly relevant for the conversation to include references to the vagina. Also, I would like to think that if a man got a job over a woman in this situation because he was a man and not a woman, there would be a similar uproar. Thank goodness Abbott chooses people in his ministry based on competence, not whether or not they sit down to pee!

How did I contradict myself?

Been going on since the advent of Affirmative Action - oh.. sorry.. "Equal'" Employment Opportunity, based, I believe on Lisa's 'equity' as opposed to equality.  Equality means you are evaluated on equal criteria - equity means equal evaluation is thrown out the window to suit numerical parity - is that right?

I was quite happy with Mike Kelly personally (I'm in Eden-Monaro), though opposed to his party for many reasons, but it seems (only) that Labor has yielded to the fan belt whining of the Labor women about not enough Exlathumpians holding down soft seats (nothing new there) under a quota formula.

I personally value Mike's principles in standing down (you listening, Mike?)- though not as a move to satisfy Party politics.  Really - he would be far better served in a different party without all this nonsense going on.  Genuine ability and merit and not this never-ending Artificial Advancement on ideological grounds - and a vote from the Membership at Party level.

Time to restore Australia to a genuinely egalitarian society based on a genuine fair go and a genuine democratic approach.  I believe MK to be a very genuine man, but this Party is not really suited.

EXAMPLE:-  If we are going to have enforced quotas - why then is there no enforced quota along these lines in JOBS:-

40% degree holders

40% non-degree holders

20% up for grabs.

Just charging along from another strand here.....

(I seriously need that ROFL emoticon)     ;D    :D   ::)

Nope - waiters of Canberra district need not beware.....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deborah_O%27Neill

http://www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2013/guide/robe/

https://www.google.com.au/#psj=1&q=Belinda+Neal

Belinda Neal.... not Deborah O'Neill.  O'Neill is the one slotted to replace Sir Robert Roadster on the Free Lunch Ride.

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:17am:

BUT then to go on a rant about vagina's & penis's, just because the reporter says, "While Ms O’Neill is being promoted on gender grounds",

Quote:

A strong case for change in the ALP [...] Dr Kelly cited the party's affirmative action policy as the reason for dropping out of the race, but the reality is that he was never in the hunt [...] http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment/a-strong-case-for-change-in-the-alp-20131030-2whaq.html

Do you have any reason why you think she is unsuitable for this position?

She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal.


According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D

If only she was a Lesbo too, thats worth double points to the politically correct ALP, sh#t if she was a muslim as well they would have made her opposition leader   ;D

Stratos wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 4:55pm:

Do you have any reason why you think she is unsuitable for this position?

That's far too logical. The conga line don't do logic.

If the Abbott approach is purely based on merit, the the fact he has only one vagina in his Cabinet says tons about the quality of women in the party.

I believe in choice on merit, and also believe if you have two equal candidates, one a vagina, the other a penis, then the vagina should be chosen.

I have asked my own penis about this. He has no objection.

From the headline I thought the ALP were rewarding Christopher Pyne  :D

adelcrow wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 5:26pm:

From the headline I thought the ALP were rewarding Christopher Pyne  :D

Haha you're not called team Spaz for nothing are you  ;D

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 4:58pm:

She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words?

Peter Freedman wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 5:07pm:

Stratos wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:55pm: Do you have any reason why you think she is unsuitable for this position? That's far too logical. The conga line don't do logic. If the Abbott approach is purely based on merit, the the fact he has only one vagina in his Cabinet says tons about the quality of women in the party. I believe in choice on merit, and also believe if you have two equal candidates, one a vagina, the other a penis, then the vagina should be chosen. I have asked my own penis about this. He has no objection.

Why should a woman get prefetential treatment over a man? That is sexism, pure sexism.

I believe in merit, pure merit, best person for the job. I don,t care of that means all men, all women or anything in between.

Answer, why is she innapropriate for this position?

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:25pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words?

He was asked why people should vote for her, Abbotts reply was because she had sex appeal  ;D ;D ;D

now lets see how you try to twist it. :D :D :D

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:27pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 5:07pm: Stratos wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:55pm: Do you have any reason why you think she is unsuitable for this position? That's far too logical. The conga line don't do logic. If the Abbott approach is purely based on merit, the the fact he has only one vagina in his Cabinet says tons about the quality of women in the party. I believe in choice on merit, and also believe if you have two equal candidates, one a vagina, the other a penis, then the vagina should be chosen. I have asked my own penis about this. He has no objection. Why should a woman get prefetential treatment over a man? That is sexism, pure sexism. I believe in merit, pure merit, best person for the job. I don,t care of that means all men, all women or anything in between.

because they have sex appeal.  ;D ;D ;D

If it comes down to a guy and a pretty fit girl, then I am telling you who wins every time at our place...

For a Finance Accountant role I went on a run of 3 Asian girls in a row on hiring.

That's just the way it is. If you get candidates and there's nothing between them on skills, then sex appeal is absolutely a factor.
In my experience Asian girls cause less trouble than Aussies anyway.

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:27pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 5:07pm: Stratos wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:55pm: Do you have any reason why you think she is unsuitable for this position? That's far too logical. The conga line don't do logic. If the Abbott approach is purely based on merit, the the fact he has only one vagina in his Cabinet says tons about the quality of women in the party. I believe in choice on merit, and also believe if you have two equal candidates, one a vagina, the other a penis, then the vagina should be chosen. I have asked my own penis about this. He has no objection. Why should a woman get prefetential treatment over a man? That is sexism, pure sexism. I believe in merit, pure merit, best person for the job. I don,t care of that means all men, all women or anything in between.

Because the male of the species got preferential treatment, for quite a long period of time & the only way to balance that situation over time, is to reverse that preferential treatment.

Oh & btw, it is merit that is needed, Because the male of the species certainly has stuffed things up, immensely, as we are now in the process of seeing, in both Political & Economic terms!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:44pm:

If it comes down to a guy and a pretty fit girl, then I am telling you who wins every time at our place... For a Finance Accountant role I went on a run of 3 Asian girls in a row on hiring. That's just the way it is. If you get candidates and there's nothing between them on skills, then sex appeal is absolutely a factor. In my experience Asian girls cause less trouble than Aussies anyway.

well that at least explains how you got your job  ;D ;D ;D

It doesn't really apply at my level.

Women at this level tend to not have children and have chosen a career opposed to family.
They also seem to feel the need to be absolute hard nosed bitches.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:50pm:

It doesn't really apply at my level. Women at this level tend to not have children and have chosen a career opposed to family. They also seem to feel the need to be absolute hard nosed bitches.

rubbish, don't sell yourself short Andrei. I hear the stockings and heels you wore at your interview were to die for!!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:50pm:

hard nosed bitches.

FYI, if you are trying to make an argument for meritocracy and not appear misogynistic, avoid gender slurs.  Because they are mysoginistic.

Stratos wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:55pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:50pm: hard nosed bitches. FYI, if you are trying to make an argument for meritocracy and not appear misogynistic, avoid gender slurs.  Because they are mysoginistic.

I don't give a toss for all that rubbish, I will call things as I see it.

The women at VP level at our place pretty much all have either no children or have a child and return to work immediately leaving a nanny to look after their child.

I call them out as hard nosed bitches because they absolutely are.
They seem to feel a need to prove to be hard as lead.
Insecurity I guess.

That's how it is.

Stratos wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:32pm:

Answer, why is she innapropriate for this position?

Not so much that she is inappropriate, but Mike Kelly is more experienced and is a better option IMO. Also, Deb O'Neill was thrashed her attempt at reelection in the seat of Robertson.

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:34pm:

matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words? He was asked why people should vote for her, Abbotts reply was because she had sex appeal  ;D ;D ;D now lets see how you try to twist it. :D :D :D

So I will take that as you being ignorant of what he said.

Andrei: Literally OK with being a mysoginist

As the father of 2 girls I assure you I want them to grow up and be able to become anything they want.

I don't care for your labels at all.

I call things as I see it. The VPs at our place that are women seem to feel the need to be hard nosed bitches. I can only assume it's insecurity but it sure is true.

So you want your daughters to grow up to enter positions they are qualified for, so that people like yourself will resent them by saying it was just because of their gender?

Where have I said I resent anyone?

You literally just said that women get jobs over men only because of their gender, then called them all bitches. 

No I didn't at all. I suggest you re read my comments.

I said sex appeal can be an additional club in the bag.
If you don't see that then you're blind.

I also point out that women who reach a higher level such as VP seem to feel the need to be as hard as nails.
Again I'm pointing out what I see. I have enough meetings with these women to know its true.

I think it's insecurity. Males at their level don't seem to feel the need to be utter pr1cks.
Though there are some.

We're one of the biggest companies in the world.
We kind of know what we are doing.

Take a look at our HR and Marketing Liason Dept. I can see the recruitment policy there!!

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:44pm:

If it comes down to a guy and a pretty fit girl, then I am telling you who wins every time at our place...

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:50pm:

feel the need to be absolute hard nosed bitches.

I'm just repeating your words. 

At a base level position and were talking roles here of about $80k
Per year!!!
Then yeah good looking girls in our place will trump an Aussie bloke.
No question.

Yes. VP level women at our place - and there aren't many - seem to need to prove themselves in their mind and be bitches.
It's plain observation and fact. Why they feel they need to is their look out.
I'm just pointing it out.

The fact they put Deb O'Neill in the Senate spot shows it's just about sex not talent.

Grendel wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:34pm:

The fact they put Deb O'Neill in the Senate spot shows it's just about sex not talent.

No one has answered why she is unsuitable for this position yet.

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:25pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words?

You think anyone stupid enough to say what Abbott said does not deserve to cop what ever he gets?

Stratos wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:37pm:

Grendel wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:34pm: The fact they put Deb O'Neill in the Senate spot shows it's just about sex not talent. No one has answered why she is unsuitable for this position yet.

Then you don't watch Parliament or follow politics then do you...  or you'd know.
She was shunted in to replace the lamentable Belinda Neal... at least Belinda has more political nouse, pity it's spoilt by too much ideological blindness.
You wont find much on her because she hasn't done much.  Party hack.
Last time I saw her on (TV) Parliament she had the nodding down pat though  ::)

Grendel wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:44pm:

Then you don't watch Parliament or follow politics then do you...  or you'd know.

So its obvious and newsworthy why she is unsuitable?
Grendel wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:44pm:

You wont find much on her because she hasn't done much.  Party hack.

Oh wait its not and you still have no reason why she isn't fit for this job.

She has worked as a teacher in both schools and universities and has previously held a position in the house of representatives, which is more than some who enter the senate.

struth... what is it about Labor and their unquenchable thirst with talking about gays and "gay" marriage?

all I ever wanted to hear them talk about is how they were going to balance the budget... but for 6 years, that speech never came..

we just got "Greens" policies and idiotic discussions on carbon taxes, ets's and gays..

do they have an independent policy of their own?

the NBN was one of their policies but they never wanted to talk about that, how it was going and how much it is costing Australians..  :-/

Stratos wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:51pm:

Grendel wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:44pm: Then you don't watch Parliament or follow politics then do you...  or you'd know. So its obvious and newsworthy why she is unsuitable? Grendel wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:44pm: You wont find much on her because she hasn't done much.  Party hack. Oh wait its not and you still have no reason why she isn't fit for this job. She has worked as a teacher in both schools and universities and has previously held a position in the house of representatives, which is more than some who enter the senate.

Oh dear tell me something I don't know...  want me to list her degrees or union affiliations?
Another one who denies trucks coming down the road... lots of people with ARTS degrees are Cabbies BTW.

Apparently I know more about her than you.
Apparently she's so impressive I'm unimpressed.
I told you to watch parliament and keep up with Australian politics...  I'm not a bloody video player you know, I told you she was a party hack and has done nothing noteworthy...  do you know anything about the ALP?  She was a teacher, then an member of the Lower House now a Senator...  my guess is that being female has been politically advantageous for her, considering she was picked to replace Belinda Neal in the first place.

Next time you try providing a real reason why she should be there and not create strawmen... 

Grendel wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 9:21pm:

Next time you try providing a real reason why she should be there and not create strawmen...

I have asked one simple question and received no answer.  When people failed to answer it I asked again.  Don't know what you think a straw man argument is but I just want someone to answer the question.

Besides, since we are talking proper debating language, stop trying to shift the burden of proof onto me and feel free to answer the question, which was for the fourth time, why do you believe this woman in unsuitable for the role she has been given.

Grendel wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 9:21pm:

my guess is that being female has been politically advantageous for he

You guess? Is that the best you got?

Stratos wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:37pm:

Grendel wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:34pm: The fact they put Deb O'Neill in the Senate spot shows it's just about sex not talent. No one has answered why she is unsuitable for this position yet.

I did.

Grendel wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:44pm:

Stratos wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:37pm: Grendel wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:34pm: The fact they put Deb O'Neill in the Senate spot shows it's just about sex not talent. No one has answered why she is unsuitable for this position yet. Then you don't watch Parliament or follow politics then do you...  or you'd know. She was shunted in to replace the lamentable Belinda Neal... at least Belinda has more political nouse, pity it's spoilt by too much ideological blindness. You wont find much on her because she hasn't done much.  Party hack. Last time I saw her on (TV) Parliament she had the nodding down pat though  ::)

Exactly. Every QT all that she did was nod. Not to mention that she went on about being such a Gillard supporter, and when it came to the crunch, she switched to Rudd.

Dnarever wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:41pm:

matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words? You think anyone stupid enough to say what Abbott said does not deserve to cop what ever he gets?

What did he say?

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:16pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:41pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words? You think anyone stupid enough to say what Abbott said does not deserve to cop what ever he gets? What did he say?

that people should vote for her(forgot the name) because she had sex appeal  ...

are you slow?

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:21pm:

matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:41pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words? You think anyone stupid enough to say what Abbott said does not deserve to cop what ever he gets? What did he say? that people should vote for her(forgot the name) because she had sex appeal  ... are you slow?

When did he say that?

Looking back matty, you actually said she was appropriate, and didn't give any reasons as to why she is unsuited.  You stated also that you thought someone was better based on nothing but your own opinion.

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:24pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:21pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:41pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words? You think anyone stupid enough to say what Abbott said does not deserve to cop what ever he gets? What did he say? that people should vote for her(forgot the name) because she had sex appeal  ... are you slow? When did he say that?

fvcken during the election campaign about the lib candidate in (I think ) western Sydney ....

Stratos wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:26pm:

Looking back matty, you actually said she was appropriate, and didn't give any reasons as to why she is unsuited.  You stated also that you thought someone was better based on nothing but your own opinion.

As I said, not really that she is inappropriate, but there is someone there more qualified to the job.

Also, it's not just the fact that she is a woman that she got the job. She is also Catholic and opposes homosexual marriage (coincidentally like me actually!) and she is from the right faction. The factions still control Labor, it's not as Democratic as the Liberals, and never will be. Anna Burke was right - the factions still control the party.

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:30pm:

matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:24pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:21pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:41pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words? You think anyone stupid enough to say what Abbott said does not deserve to cop what ever he gets? What did he say? that people should vote for her(forgot the name) because she had sex appeal  ... are you slow? When did he say that? fvcken during the election campaign about the lib candidate in (I think ) western Sydney ....

Did you listen to what he said, John? Or did you get your information from the ABC and Fairfax?

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:36pm:

it's not as Democratic as the Liberals

The Labor party recently changed it so members can vote for the party leader in 50% with the the caucus.  Don't get me wrong though, I don't support Labor either.

Still not quite sure why you think she was a wrong choice, but thanks for clarifying your position.

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:30pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:24pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:21pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:41pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words? You think anyone stupid enough to say what Abbott said does not deserve to cop what ever he gets? What did he say? that people should vote for her(forgot the name) because she had sex appeal  ... are you slow? When did he say that? fvcken during the election campaign about the lib candidate in (I think ) western Sydney .... Did you listen to what he said, John? Or did you get your information from the ABC and Fairfax?

Matty,
I would have thought you would have listened to & remembered every word uttered, by your hero -
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ5qaZvqO-w

But, even if you haven't, it's not that difficult to look up, you know?

Stratos wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:45pm:

matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:36pm: it's not as Democratic as the Liberals The Labor party recently changed it so members can vote for the party leader in 50% with the the caucus.  Don't get me wrong though, I don't support Labor either. Still not quite sure why you think she was a wrong choice, but thanks for clarifying your position.

They vote for the leader, and that's it. Incidentally, the majority 60%, didn't get who they wanted.

The Liberal party isn't run by factions, as is the aLP, neither is the National party.

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:30pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:24pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:21pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:41pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words? You think anyone stupid enough to say what Abbott said does not deserve to cop what ever he gets? What did he say? that people should vote for her(forgot the name) because she had sex appeal  ... are you slow? When did he say that? fvcken during the election campaign about the lib candidate in (I think ) western Sydney .... Did you listen to what he said, John? Or did you get your information from the ABC and Fairfax?

Actually, I believe it was channel 9 news ..... It's not one I'd forget in any great hurry Matty ... I laughed so hard I fell of the couch.  ;D ;D ;D

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:47pm:

matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:37pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:30pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:24pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:21pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:41pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words? You think anyone stupid enough to say what Abbott said does not deserve to cop what ever he gets? What did he say? that people should vote for her(forgot the name) because she had sex appeal  ... are you slow? When did he say that? fvcken during the election campaign about the lib candidate in (I think ) western Sydney .... Did you listen to what he said, John? Or did you get your information from the ABC and Fairfax? Matty, I would have thought you would have listened to & remembered every word uttered, by your hero - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aJ5qaZvqO-w But, even if you haven't, it's not that difficult to look up, you know?

I still don't see where he said that that's why people should vote for her.

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:51pm:

matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:37pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:30pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:24pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:21pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:41pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words? You think anyone stupid enough to say what Abbott said does not deserve to cop what ever he gets? What did he say? that people should vote for her(forgot the name) because she had sex appeal  ... are you slow? When did he say that? fvcken during the election campaign about the lib candidate in (I think ) western Sydney .... Did you listen to what he said, John? Or did you get your information from the ABC and Fairfax? Actually, I believe it was channel 9 news ..... It's not one I'd forget in any great hurry Matty ... I laughed so hard I fell of the couch.  ;D ;D ;D

See above.

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:49pm:

Stratos wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:45pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:36pm: it's not as Democratic as the Liberals The Labor party recently changed it so members can vote for the party leader in 50% with the the caucus.  Don't get me wrong though, I don't support Labor either. Still not quite sure why you think she was a wrong choice, but thanks for clarifying your position. They vote for the leader, and that's it. Incidentally, the majority 60%, didn't get who they wanted. The Liberal party isn't run by factions, as is the aLP, neither is the National party.

the libs have their own factions, lets not pretend that they never have problems. .... although they seem to be better able to keep it behind closed doors.

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:51pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:37pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:30pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:24pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:21pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:41pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words? You think anyone stupid enough to say what Abbott said does not deserve to cop what ever he gets? What did he say? that people should vote for her(forgot the name) because she had sex appeal  ... are you slow? When did he say that? fvcken during the election campaign about the lib candidate in (I think ) western Sydney .... Did you listen to what he said, John? Or did you get your information from the ABC and Fairfax? Actually, I believe it was channel 9 news ..... It's not one I'd forget in any great hurry Matty ... I laughed so hard I fell of the couch.  ;D ;D ;D See above.

in that case you are a bona fide idiot

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:27pm:

Peter Freedman wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 5:07pm: Stratos wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:55pm: Do you have any reason why you think she is unsuitable for this position? That's far too logical. The conga line don't do logic. If the Abbott approach is purely based on merit, the the fact he has only one vagina in his Cabinet says tons about the quality of women in the party. I believe in choice on merit, and also believe if you have two equal candidates, one a vagina, the other a penis, then the vagina should be chosen. I have asked my own penis about this. He has no objection. Why should a woman get prefetential treatment over a man? That is sexism, pure sexism. I believe in merit, pure merit, best person for the job. I don,t care of that means all men, all women or anything in between.

For the reason that there are far more penises than vaginas in most executive positions. Choosing the vagina ahead of the penis, when all other factors are equal, helps redress the gender imbalance,

Simple, really.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:23pm:

No I didn't at all. I suggest you re read my comments. I said sex appeal can be an additional club in the bag. If you don't see that then you're blind. I also point out that women who reach a higher level such as VP seem to feel the need to be as hard as nails. Again I'm pointing out what I see. I have enough meetings with these women to know its true. I think it's insecurity. Males at their level don't seem to feel the need to be utter pr1cks. Though there are some.

I think it's because women know that to succeed in top jobs they have to be tougher and harder than the males.

Maggie Thatcher knew that. Though with the limpwristed wimps she worked with, this can't have been hard.

new Labor theme song...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHz8FV8VH8s

matty wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:13pm:

Stratos wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:37pm: Grendel wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:34pm: The fact they put Deb O'Neill in the Senate spot shows it's just about sex not talent. No one has answered why she is unsuitable for this position yet. I did.

Apparently stratos doesn't accept answers they don't like matty...  ::) ::) ::)

Stratos wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 9:27pm:

Grendel wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 9:21pm: Next time you try providing a real reason why she should be there and not create strawmen... I have asked one simple question and received no answer.  When people failed to answer it I asked again.  Don't know what you think a straw man argument is but I just want someone to answer the question. Besides, since we are talking proper debating language, stop trying to shift the burden of proof onto me and feel free to answer the question, which was for the fourth time, why do you believe this woman in unsuitable for the role she has been given.

A strawman is a false/created/confected argument...  did you miss yourself doing that did you?  ::) ::) ::)

Oh and since that is the 1st time I've been asked that question I guess you'll need to edit your claims then eh.

I've already stated she is a party hack and noddy and has done nothing notable and was likely picked to replace Belinda due to her sex.  If you think being a female party hack, whose claim to fame is sitting behind the PM nodding is a measure of suitability then bingo!  She's all yours.

Don't try on the strawman crap again...  I'm not interested.

Grendel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 11:10am:

Apparently stratos doesn't accept answers they don't like matty

His response was based on opinion, and he said so himself.
Grendel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

Oh and since that is the 1st time

asked many times this thread, and only received one response based on opinion.


Grendel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

likely picked to replace Belinda due to her se

Was likely picked...another personal opinion?


Grendel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

If you think being a female party hack

How exactly are you defining hack?


Grendel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

whose claim to fame is sitting behind the PM nodding is a measure of suitability

You could describe many many backbenchers with this description if you like.

Grendel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 11:16am:

A strawman is a false/created/confected argument...  did you miss yourself doing that did you?

Thread started with "woman receives favourable treatment"

Turns into, "lets award things based on merit only"

I ask why she does not have the merit for the job.

Thats a pretty logical step in the argument

Stratos wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 11:35am:

Grendel wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 11:16am: A strawman is a false/created/confected argument...  did you miss yourself doing that did you? Thread started with "woman receives favourable treatment" Turns into, "lets award things based on merit only" I ask why she does not have the merit for the job. Thats a pretty logical step in the argument

A strawman is when I answer your question and you continually say I haven't, by creating fiction.

I don't care much about what others have said if it doesn't affect what I'm saying.  I just joined in recently. Judge me by what I say and don't create a fiction out of it.
You've been answered... apparently Matty answered you too.
And if you are going to quote someone, quote them in their entirety so you don't lose meaning or context.
Don't waste my time.  :D

Quote:

Union boss Paul Howes' bid for Bob Carr's Senate spot looks over before it even starts amid complaints from within the party that it would breach Labor rules because a woman should be installed in the spot.    Instead, outgoing Robertson MP Deborah O'Neill, liquor union official Tara Moriarty and outgoing Senator Ursula Stephens are likely to jostle for the seat, Labor sources have told The Daily Telegraph.     Outgoing Foreign Affairs Minister Mr Carr is yet to announce his retirement but is widely expected to move on in the next few months.     AWU boss Mr Howes is understood to have expressed his interest to Sussex Street headquarters while not confirming he will run for the spot.     But, amid concerns that the Labor female quota of 40 per cent women is not being met, since two men were elected to NSW Labor Senate spots at the election and Ms Stephens missed out, it is expected a woman will be preselected.     "The rules say we have to have 40 per cent of women in the upper house representation," a Labor source said.     "There are four female Senators from NSW - three are from the Coalition and one from the Greens.

Seems a quota system exists.

Grendel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 12:30pm:

A strawman is when I answer your question and you continually say I haven't, by creating fiction.

You did give an answer.  So did Matty, but both of these were based on your personal opinions.  Forgive me if that doesn't count as a reason.  Opinions matter sure, but for you to decide whether a person is appropriate or not based solely on your personal opinions is pushing it for an explanation.

Stratos wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

Grendel wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 12:30pm: A strawman is when I answer your question and you continually say I haven't, by creating fiction. You did give an answer.  So did Matty, but both of these were based on your personal opinions.  Forgive me if that doesn't count as a reason.  Opinions matter sure, but for you to decide whether a person is appropriate or not based solely on your personal opinions is pushing it for an explanation.

Really  ::) ::) ::) ::)
In my opinion the sky is blue...  gonna not accept that too I suppose  ::)
DWMT.

Grendel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 3:03pm:

In my opinion the sky is blue...  gonna not accept that too I suppose

Your opinion that the sky is blue is correct because it has been correlated by thousands of other witnesses who have all observed the same thing.

Your opinion that Deborah O'Brien is not suitable for the position of senator is incorrect because you have failed to provide any evidence to support it. 

I find the wording of this topic title to be inappropriate and offensive.

It objectifies women .. and that's uncalled for.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 3:16pm:

I find the wording of this topic title to be inappropriate and offensive. It objectifies women .. and that's uncalled for.

I agree.

STOP THE SLUTS.

Stratos wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 3:12pm:

Grendel wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 3:03pm: In my opinion the sky is blue...  gonna not accept that too I suppose Your opinion that the sky is blue is correct because it has been correlated by thousands of other witnesses who have all observed the same thing. Your opinion that Deborah O'Brien is not suitable for the position of senator is incorrect because you have failed to provide any evidence to support it.

sigh......
doesn't mean it's not true.
I'm betting if you saw it it would be true eh.  Gee look at that...  it only took one extra witness.
I've seen and heard her enough over the years to have a valid opinion thanks.
Now please just go away... 
http://www.elisabethhubert.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Boring.jpg

Lol, look at you acting like age has anything to do with having a correct opinion. 

skippy. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 3:47pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 3:16pm: I find the wording of this topic title to be inappropriate and offensive. It objectifies women .. and that's uncalled for. I agree.

Thank you Mr Skippy. You are indeed a gentleman.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 3:16pm:

I find the wording of this topic title to be inappropriate and offensive. It objectifies women .. and that's uncalled for.

Wrong. The Australian Labor Party, the party of ideas, the progressive and enlightened party has objectified women. I wonder if the ALP's rules were formulated by people wearing blue ties.

salad in wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 6:06pm:

Wrong. The Australian Labor Party, the party of ideas, the progressive and enlightened party has objectified women. I wonder if the ALP's rules were formulated by people wearing blue ties.

Thanks Saladin, the font of all knowledge.


Quote:

http://www.quotaproject.org/systemParty.cfm

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:44pm:

If it comes down to a guy and a pretty fit girl, then I am telling you who wins every time at our place... For a Finance Accountant role I went on a run of 3 Asian girls in a row on hiring. That's just the way it is. If you get candidates and there's nothing between them on skills, then sex appeal is absolutely a factor. In my experience Asian girls cause less trouble than Aussies anyway.

you are so desperately looking for a suit against you on bias in hiring.  the first rule is NEVER SAY IT.

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 3:16pm:

I find the wording of this topic title to be inappropriate and offensive. It objectifies women .. and that's uncalled for.

I agree, the thread title certainly is inappropriate!

As I have already indicted here -

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:17am:

I could/can understand a complaint, if Labor Unions used undue influence on this or any other issue, BUT then to go on a rant about vagina's & penis's, just because the reporter says, "While Ms O’Neill is being promoted on gender grounds", is a long stretch. I would think it "somewhat" unlikely that the reverse would get much of a run, If a male were proposed, either by Labor or the Libs!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1383434577/2#2

And here -

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:45pm:

Because the male of the species got preferential treatment, for quite a long period of time & the only way to balance that situation over time, is to reverse that preferential treatment. Oh & btw, it is merit that is needed, Because the male of the species certainly has stuffed things up, immensely, as we are now in the process of seeing, in both Political & Economic terms!

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1383434577/22#22

Stratos wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 4:08pm:

Lol, look at you acting like age has anything to do with having a correct opinion.

You talking to me?
and after I asked nicely..
I never mentioned age...  yet another strawman or lie if you prefer.

Now please just don't reply to me.

salad in wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 6:17pm:

salad in wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 6:06pm: Wrong. The Australian Labor Party, the party of ideas, the progressive and enlightened party has objectified women. I wonder if the ALP's rules were formulated by people wearing blue ties. Thanks Saladin, the font of all knowledge. Quote: http://www.quotaproject.org/systemParty.cfm

You forgot to change sox when you answered yourself dear.

Grendel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 6:45pm:

I never mentioned age...  yet another strawman or lie if you prefer.

Grendel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 3:54pm:

I've seen and heard her enough over the years to have a valid opinion thanks.

I'll go away when you form an opinion you can justify based on facts. 

Ok I'm typing this really slowly for you OK?

She was in politics for years...  hence I have seen her for years...
I never made any statement about "age" you created yet another strawman...  I will now put you on ignore...

from now on all you'll get is  ::)

skippy. wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 6:47pm:

salad in wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 6:17pm: salad in wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 6:06pm: Wrong. The Australian Labor Party, the party of ideas, the progressive and enlightened party has objectified women. I wonder if the ALP's rules were formulated by people wearing blue ties. Thanks Saladin, the font of all knowledge. Quote: http://www.quotaproject.org/systemParty.cfm You forgot to change sox when you answered yourself dear.

OUCH!!!!

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 7:44pm:

skippy. wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 6:47pm: salad in wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 6:17pm: salad in wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 6:06pm: Wrong. The Australian Labor Party, the party of ideas, the progressive and enlightened party has objectified women. I wonder if the ALP's rules were formulated by people wearing blue ties. Thanks Saladin, the font of all knowledge. Quote: http://www.quotaproject.org/systemParty.cfm You forgot to change sox when you answered yourself dear. OUCH!!!!

Sometimes, ya just gotta have a chuckle!

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 8:00pm:

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 7:44pm: skippy. wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 6:47pm: salad in wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 6:17pm: salad in wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 6:06pm: Wrong. The Australian Labor Party, the party of ideas, the progressive and enlightened party has objectified women. I wonder if the ALP's rules were formulated by people wearing blue ties. Thanks Saladin, the font of all knowledge. Quote: http://www.quotaproject.org/systemParty.cfm You forgot to change sox when you answered yourself dear. OUCH!!!! Sometimes, ya just gotta have a chuckle!

Yeah, seems that way hey Mr Perceptions. Wonder if we'll ever see Salad In in here again. My guess is NO.

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 7:45pm:

matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:27pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 5:07pm: Stratos wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:55pm: Do you have any reason why you think she is unsuitable for this position? That's far too logical. The conga line don't do logic. If the Abbott approach is purely based on merit, the the fact he has only one vagina in his Cabinet says tons about the quality of women in the party. I believe in choice on merit, and also believe if you have two equal candidates, one a vagina, the other a penis, then the vagina should be chosen. I have asked my own penis about this. He has no objection. Why should a woman get prefetential treatment over a man? That is sexism, pure sexism. I believe in merit, pure merit, best person for the job. I don,t care of that means all men, all women or anything in between. Because the male of the species got preferential treatment, for quite a long period of time & the only way to balance that situation over time, is to reverse that preferential treatment. Oh & btw, it is merit that is needed, Because the male of the species certainly has stuffed things up, immensely, as we are now in the process of seeing, in both Political & Economic terms!

You think it was 'preferential treatment' to go to work in a filthy industry while mum stayed home?  Of died of a gutful of lead in some filthy war?

Get a life.  There is no justification whatsoever for any suggestion that women in the past were oppressed any more than men were - thing is - men still are.

Preferential treatment -Jeee-Zuz.  How old are you?  If you're under 60 then STFU about things you know nothing about.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 8:09pm:

As the father of 2 girls I assure you I want them to grow up and be able to become anything they want. I don't care for your labels at all. I call things as I see it. The VPs at our place that are women seem to feel the need to be hard nosed bitches. I can only assume it's insecurity but it sure is true.

There is no argument over women getting to do whatever they want - but not at the direct expense of men with affirmative action and so forth.  They already have the advantages you listed before.... and therefore genuine merit is the only way to go.

As you know - I oppose quotas and will not change, and I happen to believe women with real merit would do as well as men under a pure merit system, but not while carrying the monkey on their backs of affirmative action, which nobody believes renders the best result, only a socialist 'final solution' to THEIR perception of a problem.

My daughter does what she wants to do - nobody could stop her anyway...   ;D.. and my children were raised to have their own minds.

Wouldn't have it any other way.

Peter Freedman wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 3:16am:

For the reason that there are far more penises than vaginas in most executive positions. Choosing the vagina ahead of the penis, when all other factors are equal, helps redress the gender imbalance, Simple, really.

There is no gender imbalance in a pure merit system without artificial advancement window dressing - there is what is - it's called equal treatment, not equal outcomes.

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:52pm:

matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:49pm: Stratos wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:45pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:36pm: it's not as Democratic as the Liberals The Labor party recently changed it so members can vote for the party leader in 50% with the the caucus.  Don't get me wrong though, I don't support Labor either. Still not quite sure why you think she was a wrong choice, but thanks for clarifying your position. They vote for the leader, and that's it. Incidentally, the majority 60%, didn't get who they wanted. The Liberal party isn't run by factions, as is the aLP, neither is the National party. the libs have their own factions, lets not pretend that they never have problems. .... although they seem to be better able to keep it behind closed doors.

Yes we do have factions, but they are not formal and there is no animosity between members, unlike in Labor, where many hate each other's guts.

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2013 at 10:54pm:

matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:52pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:51pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:37pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:30pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:24pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:21pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:16pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:41pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:25pm: John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:58pm: She is eminently qualified  ..... she has sex appeal. According to the suppository of wisdom, that's all she needs. ;D ;D ;D ;D Are you ignorant of what Abbott said, or deliberately twisting his words? You think anyone stupid enough to say what Abbott said does not deserve to cop what ever he gets? What did he say? that people should vote for her(forgot the name) because she had sex appeal  ... are you slow? When did he say that? fvcken during the election campaign about the lib candidate in (I think ) western Sydney .... Did you listen to what he said, John? Or did you get your information from the ABC and Fairfax? Actually, I believe it was channel 9 news ..... It's not one I'd forget in any great hurry Matty ... I laughed so hard I fell of the couch.  ;D ;D ;D See above. in that case you are a bona fide idiot

You are such a moron.

Peter Freedman wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 3:16am:

matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:27pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 5:07pm: Stratos wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:55pm: Do you have any reason why you think she is unsuitable for this position? That's far too logical. The conga line don't do logic. If the Abbott approach is purely based on merit, the the fact he has only one vagina in his Cabinet says tons about the quality of women in the party. I believe in choice on merit, and also believe if you have two equal candidates, one a vagina, the other a penis, then the vagina should be chosen. I have asked my own penis about this. He has no objection. Why should a woman get prefetential treatment over a man? That is sexism, pure sexism. I believe in merit, pure merit, best person for the job. I don,t care of that means all men, all women or anything in between. For the reason that there are far more penises than vaginas in most executive positions. Choosing the vagina ahead of the penis, when all other factors are equal, helps redress the gender imbalance, Simple, really.

I disagree, put the vagina and penis in a hat.

Grendel wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 11:10am:

matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 10:13pm: Stratos wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:37pm: Grendel wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 8:34pm: The fact they put Deb O'Neill in the Senate spot shows it's just about sex not talent. No one has answered why she is unsuitable for this position yet. I did. Apparently stratos doesn't accept answers they don't like matty...  ::) ::) ::)

I agree Grendel. Mike Kelly is obviously a better choice, but the reason he didn't get it is because he has a penis, and that is sexist.

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 8:25pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:45pm: matty wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 7:27pm: Peter Freedman wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 5:07pm: Stratos wrote on Nov 3rd, 2013 at 4:55pm: Do you have any reason why you think she is unsuitable for this position? That's far too logical. The conga line don't do logic. If the Abbott approach is purely based on merit, the the fact he has only one vagina in his Cabinet says tons about the quality of women in the party. I believe in choice on merit, and also believe if you have two equal candidates, one a vagina, the other a penis, then the vagina should be chosen. I have asked my own penis about this. He has no objection. Why should a woman get prefetential treatment over a man? That is sexism, pure sexism. I believe in merit, pure merit, best person for the job. I don,t care of that means all men, all women or anything in between. Because the male of the species got preferential treatment, for quite a long period of time & the only way to balance that situation over time, is to reverse that preferential treatment. Oh & btw, it is merit that is needed, Because the male of the species certainly has stuffed things up, immensely, as we are now in the process of seeing, in both Political & Economic terms! You think it was 'preferential treatment' to go to work in a filthy industry while mum stayed home?  Of died of a gutful of lead in some filthy war? Get a life.  There is no justification whatsoever for any suggestion that women in the past were oppressed any more than men were - thing is - men still are. Preferential treatment -Jeee-Zuz.  How old are you?  If you're under 60 then STFU about things you know nothing about.

In fact, there is a considerable weight of facts that say the Female of the species has received less than equality and as your friend "John Adams" may agree “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.”

That said, IF the male of the species, which has received an across the board preferential treatment, had at least done a good job in setting up the future of humanity, then perhaps we ould make excuses, BUT the Reality is we have done poorly!

Oh & btw, Yes I am over 60, not that age automatically gives me any better understanding, other than it has given me more time than those under 60, to what what has been "cocked up"!

Lisa Jones wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 8:03pm:

Yeah, seems that way hey Mr Perceptions. Wonder if we'll ever see Salad In in here again. My guess is NO.

I never use reverse gear. By the way, there's a topic about dividing your orchids; it is less confronting and may suit a tender person such as yourself. You'll be more comfortable over there.

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 8:50pm:

In fact, there is a considerable weight of facts that say the Female of the species has received less than equality and as your friend "John Adams" may agree “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” That said, IF the male of the species, which has received an across the board preferential treatment, had at least done a good job in setting up the future of humanity, then perhaps we ould make excuses, BUT the Reality is we have done poorly! Oh & btw, Yes I am over 60, not that age automatically gives me any better understanding, other than it has given me more time than those under 60, to what what has been "cocked up"!

Facts please - not rhetoric.... as a Kiwi you claim NZ women haven't had the vote for over a hundred years same as here?  And what else have they missed out on in all that time other than not having jobs - when most jobs were hard, filthy, dangerous and life-shortening.

I don't see your feminists lining up to work in foundries - do you?

FACTS.. not rhetoric.... women were LIBERATED from the shackles of wage slavery in filthy mines and factories by the work of Unions to gain a single living wage - and that LIBERATION lead directly to universal education, a balanced an relatively prosperous society, and the potential for every family to own a home, as well as the upward movement in rights and social conditions for all.

You see that around here now?  I see the mandatory dual income family, massive disempowerment of many, poverty of many, vanishing hope for many to ever own a home, social disaster on all sides, and a steady demolition derby on Rights, as well as never-ending discrimination to favour women under this delusion that they were 'oppressed' in the past by not having 'careers' that didn't exist - most people were lucky to have JOBS - most of which women could not or would not do.

If that's 'equality' - keep it!

The 'doing poorly' began - and continues to this day, at the moment MEN were foolish enough to install artificial advancement to 'equalise' women.  Western society has never looked up since.

AND ADDS:-  Women always got their cut by being part of a socio-economic unit called a Family - remember that from the history books?

Amazing - simply amazing!  Some people think it is perfectly all right for any State, government or movement to simply set about deliberately oppressing a specified social group - men these days under this delusion of 'they deserve it after all the years poor women put up with it' - and then wonder why they are rightly tarred with the Fascist brush!

I hate to inform you, but such a deliberate action - not a societal demand of the times - is defined as a Crime Agaisnt Humanity.

Hiding under a 'socialist' umbrella won't save you from that either - that's why these sorts of movements are rightly labeled socio-fascist', and always will be - and always will be opposed by right thinking people everywhere.

Maybe ten years in the gulag for socio-fascist adherents following the successful reversion of the West to sanity will change their minds about "the right and duty of men to be oppressed due to some myth from the past."

A little bit of the same medicine always helps.  Five minutes of GENUINE oppression is usually enough to startle the average ideologue out o his/her mythology.

How would YOU like thirty years of preferential treatment for someone else in your country?  Let's pick a group - Muslims, or Greeks, or Legally Browns.  For the next thirty years ONLY they will receive AA to get them 'equal'.. and if thirty farken years isn't enough by their standards, meaning if one of them misses out on a job or they complain enough - it will go on FOREVER!

Feminists and feminist apologists are fools.  The West proves that right here and now.

                                                 ;D

Grappler Deep State Feller wrote on Nov 4^th, 2013 at 9:14pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Nov 4th, 2013 at 8:50pm: In fact, there is a considerable weight of facts that say the Female of the species has received less than equality and as your friend "John Adams" may agree “Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” That said, IF the male of the species, which has received an across the board preferential treatment, had at least done a good job in setting up the future of humanity, then perhaps we ould make excuses, BUT the Reality is we have done poorly! Oh & btw, Yes I am over 60, not that age automatically gives me any better understanding, other than it has given me more time than those under 60, to what what has been "cocked up"! Facts please - not rhetoric.... as a Kiwi you claim NZ women haven't had the vote for over a hundred years same as here?  And what else have they missed out on in all that time other than not having jobs - when most jobs were hard, filthy, dangerous and life-shortening. I don;t see your feminists lining up to work in foundries - do you? FACTS.. not rhetoric.... women were LIBERATED from the shackles of wage slavery in filthy mines and factories by the work of Unions to gain a single living wage - and that LIBERATION lead directly to universal education, a balanced an relatively prosperous society, and the potential for every family to own a home, as well as the upward movement in rights and social conditions for all. You see that around here now?  I see the mandatory dual income family, massive disempowerment of many, poverty of many, vanishing hope for many to ever own a home, social disaster on all sides, and a steady demolition derby on Rights, as well as never-ending discrimination to favour women under this delusion that they were 'oppressed' in the past by not having 'careers' that didn't exist - most people were lucky to have JOBS - most of which women could not or would not do. If that's 'equality' - keep it! The 'doing poorly' began - and continues to this day, at the moment MEN were foolish enough to install artificial advancement to 'equalise' women.  Western society has never looked up since.

Huh? Again, I suggest you take your own advice and check out your "facts", before you say anything!

I am not a Kiwi! But, you probably dragged that one, up from the same place you dragged up some of your other "so called facts"!

I thought you said somewhere you were a Kiwi.  Not important.

Well - let's just see - you say women were oppressed.. yet you will not accept that being kept aside from dangerous and life-shortening jobs was not oppression.

How about you offer up some facts then?  You can forget the 2.4 women driving big and automatic etc trucks in the mines as 'equals' - how many work at the coalface in Kwinana for example - or out felling trees, or out at the crack of dawn handling the farm?  How many women on construction jobs work as concretors?  None!  How many women in road gangs do the pick and shovel work?  None!  Very, very, very few - if any.

So - I rest my case - 'feminism' and feminist apologists are only interested in women getting the cream jobs, not in equality - and suggestions that they were excluded in the past when professional jobs so enjoyed by so many these days - many of which are fill-in jobs and the equivalent of taking in your washing while you take in mine - did not even exist as a possibility for the vast majority, are absurd and nonsensical.

Are you saying that a man, his wife and his kids forced to work underground in cramped conditions with pick and shovel was oppressing women alone?  Or working in an Industrial Age factory or foundry was oppressing women alone?  Or having the family work in a mill that created life-threatening illness during the Industrial Revolution was oppressing women alone?

Women here had the vote in 1900 - universal male suffrage came in 1896 - my grandmother had it before my grandfather, who was younger than she was.  She stayed home while he toiled as an engine driver with a big shovel for coal into a boiler etc.  She was educated at a private school and had servants - he got rudimentary public school education and his family were workers.... she died at 86, he at 60.

You need to wake up - alongside about 45% of the population who imagine that women are oppressed, are paid less for the same job, and that all men who don't give them whatever they want are 'misogynists' or woman haters, even if the alternative is that those men themselves starve or go without or watch their families and lives disintegrate because women 'want it all'.  You heard recently from the Labrador women how they'd 'worked like little swots' and some (but not 42%) missed out on front seats in the bus - ever worked for the public service - worked like a swot yourself, being a man - and then been passed by to suit affirmative action?  Welcome to Realitysville - where you don't always get what your want, or what your deserve or what you've worked for, or what you've earned in some way, and where you are outright ripped off sometimes to suit someone else.

You reckon that's right for the gander, but not for the goose because of some myth that those women handed those jobs were oppressed?  Not one of them missed a square meal in her life, or a warm set of clothing, or a comfortable home, or a fair education PLUS - so socialist rubbish is just that - socialist rubbish.

Now - where are YOUR facts?  Or are you content with rhetoric and propaganda?

Feminism is for children with no real knowledge or understanding.  Get used to it - its day has gone, and if you can't genuinely compete on a genuinely level playing field - get off!  This country, and the Rest of the West, can no longer afford such self-destructive luxury runs for some.

http://www.tanghin.edu.hk/~ysp/cartoon_english_factory.gif

http://wiki.dickinson.edu/images/2/21/Livingwagecartoon.jpg

Do you understand the concept of the single living wage?  You see that anywhere near here now apart from a few growing fewer every day?