Australian Politics Forum - So which is it?

Back to OzPolitic.com

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Federal Politics › So which is it?

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2 3

Send Topic

Print

So which is it? (Read 2203 times)

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74939
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #15 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 3:28pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:14pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:57am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:12am:

Simple. Answer: both

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:14am:

why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???

I think that's just a convenient excuse .... if caucus could have worked with Rudd, Abbotts numbers would have meant nothing, and Rudd would never have been removed.

Sort of blows your theory away

you have a very simplistic way of viewing events, dont you?

when things are simple , I keep them simple ... you just like to complicate things because that's the only way you can get them to fit your convoluted theories ....

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #16 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:13pm

Mnemonic wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:47pm:

er... isnt it true that the only people that like Kevin are those that dont knowhim? his relationships with almost everyone are dysfunctiona.

You're talking about his professional relationships. He seems to have a pretty good family life. People with NPD often engage in intimate partner violence because of a desire to control the partner. I haven't seen any signs yet of Kevin being a "controlling" person in family life.

The main reason why Kevin found himself in a situation of a dysfunctional Cabinet was because he became popular, people voted for him and he then had a job to do. I think the reason why he did so badly was because he had no previous experience for the kind of role given to him. He just found himself with more responsibility than he ever had and was under pressure. It's like what happened to Susan Boyle. She became an instant star, was under pressure and suffered a breakdown because she couldn't handle the fame.

Based on what I've read about NPD, that's not a sign of NPD. These are people who never wanted to be famous, but found themselves thrust into the spotlight and pressured to perform. By the time Kevin became popular, he had already been raising a family for some 20 years. If he was a control freak, he had 20 years to prove it.

Rudd's NPD has been obvious before he was a politician where everytime he worked in a govt department he was loathed pretty much in the same manner he is loathed now You only have the public image from the Rudd family that he isnt a narcisisitic individual at home which is unreliable. and narcisists are not necessarily violent and in most cases arent

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #17 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:17pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:14am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:02am:

Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that

1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him

2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election .

So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways.

Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH??? Very few events in life have only one trigger.

Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010.

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Aussie

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 38821
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #18 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:29pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:13pm:

Mnemonic wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 1:51pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 12:47pm:

er... isnt it true that the only people that like Kevin are those that dont knowhim? his relationships with almost everyone are dysfunctiona.

You're talking about his professional relationships. He seems to have a pretty good family life. People with NPD often engage in intimate partner violence because of a desire to control the partner. I haven't seen any signs yet of Kevin being a "controlling" person in family life.

The main reason why Kevin found himself in a situation of a dysfunctional Cabinet was because he became popular, people voted for him and he then had a job to do. I think the reason why he did so badly was because he had no previous experience for the kind of role given to him. He just found himself with more responsibility than he ever had and was under pressure. It's like what happened to Susan Boyle. She became an instant star, was under pressure and suffered a breakdown because she couldn't handle the fame.

Based on what I've read about NPD, that's not a sign of NPD. These are people who never wanted to be famous, but found themselves thrust into the spotlight and pressured to perform. By the time Kevin became popular, he had already been raising a family for some 20 years. If he was a control freak, he had 20 years to prove it.

Rudd's NPD has been obvious before he was a politician where everytime he worked in a govt department he was loathed pretty much in the same manner he is loathed now You only have the public image from the Rudd family that he isnt a narcisisitic individual at home which is unreliable. and narcisists are not necessarily violent and in most cases arent

Melielongtime, would you mind listing your formal qualifications which might suggest you can be believed about this issue?

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #19 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:47pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:02am:

Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that

1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him

2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election .

So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways.

Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

Cheese!! You can't even join two dots.

It is both.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #20 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:48pm

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:02am:

Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that

1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him

2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election .

So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was h e removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways.

Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

Cheese!! You can't even join two dots.

It is both.

Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010.

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74939
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #21 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:49pm

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:47pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:02am:

Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that

1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him

2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election .

So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways.

Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

Cheese!! You can't even join two dots.

It is both.

of course it is ..... by the way did you see the UFO over last nights skyline ... the Martians have landed.

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #22 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:52pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:57am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:12am:

Simple. Answer: both

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:14am:

why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???

I think that's just a convenient excuse .... if caucus could have worked with Rudd, Abbotts numbers would have meant nothing, and Rudd would never have been removed.

Sort of blows your theory away

Rudd faced down Nelson and Turnbull and now Gillard.

Abbott faced down Turnbull, Rudd, Gillard (twice - 2010, 2013) and now it will be Rudd again.

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74939
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #23 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:59pm

Soren wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:52pm:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:57am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:12am:

Simple. Answer: both

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:14am:

why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH???

I think that's just a convenient excuse .... if caucus could have worked with Rudd, Abbotts numbers would have meant nothing, and Rudd would never have been removed.

Sort of blows your theory away

Rudd faced down Nelson and Turnbull and now Gillard.

Abbott faced down Turnbull, Rudd, Gillard (twice - 2010, 2013) and now it will be Rudd again.

yes, we all know the history lesson ... but did Rudd go because his colleagues couldn't work with him ,or because Abbott was a master tactician

I find it funny that the libs will with one comment criticise Rudd claiming his own colleagues couldn't work with him and that was why he was removed, and then with the very next breath claim that it was because Abbott is so brilliant. Unless Abbott was passing fake memo's and emails between Rudd and his staff, I don't see what Abbott had to do with it.

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #24 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:10pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:14am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:02am:

Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that

1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him

2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election .

So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways.

Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH??? Very few events in life have only one trigger.

Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010.

after 4 years of defeating labor time and time again, it is perhaps time to ascribe some credit to Abbott.

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

John Smith

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 74939
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #25 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:12pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:14am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:02am:

Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that

1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him

2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election .

So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways.

Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH??? Very few events in life have only one trigger.

Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010.

after 4 years of defeating labor time and time again, it is perhaps time to ascribe some credit to Abbott.

name just once?

Our esteemed leader:
I hope that bitch who was running their brothels for them gets raped with a cactus.

IP Logged

sir prince duke alevine

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 23619
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #26 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:14pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:14am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:02am:

Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that

1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him

2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election .

So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways.

Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH??? Very few events in life have only one trigger.

Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010.

after 4 years of defeating labor time and time again, it is perhaps time to ascribe some credit to Abbott.

Defeating? I'd say the polls have shown time and again that labors instability and inability to formulate a consistent message has been the cause of their results.

Disclaimer for Mothra per POST so it is forever acknowledged: Saying 'Islam' or 'Muslims' doesn't mean ALL muslims. This does not target individual muslims who's opinion I am not aware of.

IP Logged

Mnemonic

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 1530
Melbourne
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #27 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:41pm

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:13pm:

Rudd's NPD has been obvious before he was a politician where everytime he worked in a govt department he was loathed pretty much in the same manner he is loathed now.

Being assertive or aggressive in one's career doesn't mean a person has NPD -- at least not "clinical" NPD. It's relatively normal for some people to be assertive, aggressive or "cut-throat" in their career. Laypeople like us may like playing with the term NPD, but I don't think it's the same as real NPD.

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:13pm:

You only have the public image from the Rudd family that he isnt a narcisisitic individual at home which is unreliable. and narcisists are not necessarily violent and in most cases arent

NPD doesn't necessarily mean a person is physically violent. It doesn't mean you're a wife-beater. Based on what I have read, people with NPD just tend to be controlling in their most intimate relationships. In the outside, however, they appear normal.

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #28 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 7:06pm

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:12pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:14am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:02am:

Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that

1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him

2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election .

So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways.

Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH??? Very few events in life have only one trigger.

Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010.

after 4 years of defeating labor time and time again, it is perhaps time to ascribe some credit to Abbott.

name just once?

Rudd 2010
Gillard 2010-2013
etc

or does beating labor in the polls for 3 years not mean anything to you?

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

longweekend58

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 45675
Gender: male

male

Re: So which is it?
Reply #29 - Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 7:08pm

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:14pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 6:10pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 5:17pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 11:14am:

John Smith wrote on Jul 2^nd, 2013 at 10:02am:

Over the last few days, I have heard all the liberal monkeys on here and on television interviews, claiming that

1 - the labor caucus got rid of Rudd because he was dysfunctional, and they couldn't work with him

2 - in the same breath, they claim that Rudd was removed as PM because Abbott is some sort of master tactician, and they feared Rudd would lose the election .

So which is it? Was he removed because labor caucus couldn't work with him, or was he removed because they feared Abbott? You cannot have it both ways.

Once you've made up your mind, can you please use that excuse, and stop changing your stories with each post. It only makes you look desperate.

why is it so hard to beleive that it was BOTH??? Very few events in life have only one trigger.

Saying no to the ets was hardly a master tactic so much as the events that followed were pure luck for tony and reflect more on the instability within labor that was always there, just less visible until jan 2010.

after 4 years of defeating labor time and time again, it is perhaps time to ascribe some credit to Abbott.

Defeating? I'd say the polls have shown time and again that labors instability and inability to formulate a consistent message has been the cause of their results.

which they were doing from nov 2007 to nov 2009 but it wasnt until abbott took the job that their fortunes changed. You can wonder why all you like but you cannot deny that the libs were in the toilet until abbott was leader and it changed IMMEDIATELY.

AUSSIE: "Speaking for myself, I could not care less about 298 human beings having their life snuffed out in a nano-second, or what impact that loss has on Members of their family, their parents..."

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2 3

Send Topic

Print

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Top of this page

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

Valid XHTML

Valid CSS

Powered by Perl

Source Forge