-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
This night on government I ponder
on who should my vote I squander
one side tells me the future is fearfull
the other provides me plans to be cheerfull
One side has made ministerial accountability a scam
and introduced IR laws that are a sham
The other boasts an education revolution
and health system free of state convolution
The answer is thus plain to see
On Australian voters you just cannot pee
But wait there's a 16 seat buffer
Little Johnny's back in - and I'm the duffer!
on who should my vote I squander
one side tells me the future is fearfull
the other provides me plans to be cheerfull
One side has made ministerial accountability a scam
and introduced IR laws that are a sham
The other boasts an education revolution
and health system free of state convolution
The answer is thus plain to see
On Australian voters you just cannot pee
But wait there's a 16 seat buffer
Little Johnny's back in - and I'm the duffer!
Dear John letter
There's talk on the street,
It's there to remind you
That it doesn't really matter
which side you're on.
You're walking away
and they're talking behind you
They will never forget you
'til somebody new comes along
Where you been lately?
There's a new kid in town
Everybody loves him, don't they?
There's talk on the street,
It's there to remind you
That it doesn't really matter
which side you're on.
You're walking away
and they're talking behind you
They will never forget you
'til somebody new comes along
Where you been lately?
There's a new kid in town
Everybody loves him, don't they?
Had to have a chuckle at Channel-9 tonight with their special on the election, where they gave the main candidates a 1-minute time limit to speak about why they should be voted in.
They then asked Ray Martin's (stacked) audience to vote.....and for each candidate, the ALP were around the 60-65%.....the Libs around the 35% mark.
Pretty similar to the way the worm skyrocketed as soon as Rudd shows his face on the screen for the debate.
Ray seemed pretty happy with that.
Anyway, they opened the phone-lines for the people at home watching to vote....and the reverse happened, with most people voting 60-65% for the Libs (76% for Howard!) and around 30-35% for the ALP (Rudd got 24%!).
That took the smile off Ray's mug... :hihi
Like I have stated for a few months now.....I'll be voting for the Libs, but I think Rudd will get in (unfortunately).
Even though I don't like that other red-ragger on Channel-9, that Laurie Oakes....I think he was right when he said that people aren't voting against Howard because of anything he has specifically done, it is just that people feel like a 'change'...that is it.
Also, I think Rudd has really gone after the young voters who may only remember the Libs and Howard as their PM.
He has his slogans (Kevin07) and his YouTube.....as well as all the right words "education revolution" and (if I have to hear this one more time, I'll
) "WORKING CLASS FAMILIES"....please! :
....as well as promising all this broadband and computers for kids and the like.
He probably seems like a good option for the young voters out there.
When these young voters get a taste of life under an ALP government, with slogans like "no child will live in poverty..." and "the recession we had to have", etc....then they will realise how good they had it under the Libs.
It is also the first time since Federation that the ALP will have all the states and the nation in their power...something to look forward to, eh? :-\
And I'll be sitting here telling you......"told you so"
:hihi
They then asked Ray Martin's (stacked) audience to vote.....and for each candidate, the ALP were around the 60-65%.....the Libs around the 35% mark.
Pretty similar to the way the worm skyrocketed as soon as Rudd shows his face on the screen for the debate.
Ray seemed pretty happy with that.
Anyway, they opened the phone-lines for the people at home watching to vote....and the reverse happened, with most people voting 60-65% for the Libs (76% for Howard!) and around 30-35% for the ALP (Rudd got 24%!).
That took the smile off Ray's mug... :hihi
Like I have stated for a few months now.....I'll be voting for the Libs, but I think Rudd will get in (unfortunately).
Even though I don't like that other red-ragger on Channel-9, that Laurie Oakes....I think he was right when he said that people aren't voting against Howard because of anything he has specifically done, it is just that people feel like a 'change'...that is it.
Also, I think Rudd has really gone after the young voters who may only remember the Libs and Howard as their PM.
He has his slogans (Kevin07) and his YouTube.....as well as all the right words "education revolution" and (if I have to hear this one more time, I'll
) "WORKING CLASS FAMILIES"....please! : ....as well as promising all this broadband and computers for kids and the like.He probably seems like a good option for the young voters out there.
When these young voters get a taste of life under an ALP government, with slogans like "no child will live in poverty..." and "the recession we had to have", etc....then they will realise how good they had it under the Libs.
It is also the first time since Federation that the ALP will have all the states and the nation in their power...something to look forward to, eh? :-\
And I'll be sitting here telling you......"told you so"
:hihi
Hey Livers as dedicated as you are to keeping us up to date with every Lib article and link one seems to have slipped your guard.
A stupid act, even for such an airhead
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Michelle Grattan
November 23, 2007
Jackie Kelly was the symbol of John Howard's triumphal year of 1996. After she was reconfirmed at a byelection where she increased her majority, she became a prime ministerial talisman and favourite. Now she might become the symbol of his end.
Kelly - who was a minister for several years, chosen mainly because of her status as the icon of Howard's western Sydney "battlers" - has always been a bit of an airhead. But not even her strongest critics could have anticipated yesterday's performance.
Kelly's husband, Gary, was among those distributing the pamphlet from the non-existent "Islamic Australia Federation" that said, "We strongly support the ALP as our preferred party to govern this country and urge all other Muslims to do the same" and "We gratefully acknowledge Labors support to forgive our Muslim brothers who have been unjustly sentenced to death for the Bali bombings."
A Liberal source blew the whistle, tipping off Labor. Kelly went on AM yesterday morning with her take on what must go down as one of the nastiest dirty tricks of recent elections.
"When I first read it I had to laugh . . . pretty much everyone who has read (it) chuckles, in terms of the parody it does make of various things that have happened during the campaign," she said. "My view is that it's a bit of Chaser-style prank." She accused a Labor "goon squad" of going after the Liberal workers who were distributing the pamphlets.
That someone who represented a federal electorate on behalf of the Liberal Party from 1996 until this election could claim that "if you read it you'd be laughing" is amazing. So is the fact that not only Kelly's husband was distributing this pamphlet, but also the husband of the new Liberal candidate for Lindsay, Karen Chijoff.
Both Greg Chijoff and Kelly's husband, Gary Clark, insisted in letters of apology to the NSW Liberal state director Graham Jaeschke yesterday that their wives had no knowledge of the pamphlet. The husbands had a bit of help with the letters, judging by the similar ring in the wording in each. "I confirm that my wife Karen nor you were aware of this offensive pamphlet or were in any way involved in the production and the distribution," Chijoff wrote. "I confirm that neither the candidate for Lindsay nor Jackie, nor you had any advance knowledge of this matter," Clark wrote.
Presumably, we must accept their word for it. But it does seem unusual that the candidate would not know anything about her husband being out and about with such a sensational pamphlet, and that the retiring member's husband would not mention the sort of material he was distributing. What do these people talk about around the kitchen table?
That leaves us with John Howard. The PM is a big fan of his new candidate for Lindsay, whom he recently called "a star".
Of course, unlike Kelly, he did not see the matter as a joke. Apart from anything else, he is standing for re-election. It was wrong, offensive and a lot more besides, he told us when he appeared at the National Press Club, where a lot of his local Liberal barrackers turned up to give him support.
But don't think this reflects on his candidate. Indeed, to suggest it did would, it seems, be anti-feminist.
"You should not automatically visit upon her the errors of her husband," he said. "I thought we had a society now where, you know, the fact that a husband might hold a senior position in government or perhaps a senior position in the judicial structure of the country did not or should not disentitle his wife, or vice versa, from also seeking and obtaining preferment and therefore the public behaviour of husbands and wives is entitled to a certain degree of independence."
Mmm. It's hard to think this useful separation doctrine would cut much ice if Janette was found out in Bennelong in the dead of night, stuffing letterboxes with anti-Muslim pamphlets. Wouldn't we think the PM had a bit of responsibility?
A stupid act, even for such an airhead
Email Printer friendly version Normal font Large font Michelle Grattan
November 23, 2007
Jackie Kelly was the symbol of John Howard's triumphal year of 1996. After she was reconfirmed at a byelection where she increased her majority, she became a prime ministerial talisman and favourite. Now she might become the symbol of his end.
Kelly - who was a minister for several years, chosen mainly because of her status as the icon of Howard's western Sydney "battlers" - has always been a bit of an airhead. But not even her strongest critics could have anticipated yesterday's performance.
Kelly's husband, Gary, was among those distributing the pamphlet from the non-existent "Islamic Australia Federation" that said, "We strongly support the ALP as our preferred party to govern this country and urge all other Muslims to do the same" and "We gratefully acknowledge Labors support to forgive our Muslim brothers who have been unjustly sentenced to death for the Bali bombings."
A Liberal source blew the whistle, tipping off Labor. Kelly went on AM yesterday morning with her take on what must go down as one of the nastiest dirty tricks of recent elections.
"When I first read it I had to laugh . . . pretty much everyone who has read (it) chuckles, in terms of the parody it does make of various things that have happened during the campaign," she said. "My view is that it's a bit of Chaser-style prank." She accused a Labor "goon squad" of going after the Liberal workers who were distributing the pamphlets.
That someone who represented a federal electorate on behalf of the Liberal Party from 1996 until this election could claim that "if you read it you'd be laughing" is amazing. So is the fact that not only Kelly's husband was distributing this pamphlet, but also the husband of the new Liberal candidate for Lindsay, Karen Chijoff.
Both Greg Chijoff and Kelly's husband, Gary Clark, insisted in letters of apology to the NSW Liberal state director Graham Jaeschke yesterday that their wives had no knowledge of the pamphlet. The husbands had a bit of help with the letters, judging by the similar ring in the wording in each. "I confirm that my wife Karen nor you were aware of this offensive pamphlet or were in any way involved in the production and the distribution," Chijoff wrote. "I confirm that neither the candidate for Lindsay nor Jackie, nor you had any advance knowledge of this matter," Clark wrote.
Presumably, we must accept their word for it. But it does seem unusual that the candidate would not know anything about her husband being out and about with such a sensational pamphlet, and that the retiring member's husband would not mention the sort of material he was distributing. What do these people talk about around the kitchen table?
That leaves us with John Howard. The PM is a big fan of his new candidate for Lindsay, whom he recently called "a star".
Of course, unlike Kelly, he did not see the matter as a joke. Apart from anything else, he is standing for re-election. It was wrong, offensive and a lot more besides, he told us when he appeared at the National Press Club, where a lot of his local Liberal barrackers turned up to give him support.
But don't think this reflects on his candidate. Indeed, to suggest it did would, it seems, be anti-feminist.
"You should not automatically visit upon her the errors of her husband," he said. "I thought we had a society now where, you know, the fact that a husband might hold a senior position in government or perhaps a senior position in the judicial structure of the country did not or should not disentitle his wife, or vice versa, from also seeking and obtaining preferment and therefore the public behaviour of husbands and wives is entitled to a certain degree of independence."
Mmm. It's hard to think this useful separation doctrine would cut much ice if Janette was found out in Bennelong in the dead of night, stuffing letterboxes with anti-Muslim pamphlets. Wouldn't we think the PM had a bit of responsibility?
Tigerdog said:
rosy23 said:You forgot the promise of no interest increases....oh wrong party.
Well, we'll see what the interest-rates are at in 6 months, 12 months, and 2 years time under Ruddy and Swanny.
I'm tipping they aren't going to go down...
rosy23 said:
It didn't slip my guard, but as I am voting for the Libs, it would be quite silly of me to post anti-Lib articles now, wouldn't it......only a true ALP voter would post such an article...
However I do think it was stupid to do this.
There is enough REAL Islamic rubbish out there without manufacturing it.
However, Rudd IS supporting the Bali bombers from not being executed...just ask Robert McClelland before he got towelled-down for letting the true ALP policy out of the bag.
Liverpool said:
More power to Rudd if that's the case. You have to live by the rules of the land a crime is committed in but I'd be horrified if any leader of our country actually supported execution. Is Johnny in favour of it? I thought better of him than that if he is.
rosy23 said:
So the Bali-bombers can kill 88 Australians....show no remorse, laugh in court....and you don't want them to be executed?
Do you think jail in a corrupt country like Indonesia is a punishment for these cretins?
rosy23 said:
Howard is fully supportive of the Bali bombers getting the death penalty.....and I 100% agree with him.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/10/10/2055654.htm
Now it is your turn:
So the Bali-bombers can kill 88 Australians....show no remorse, laugh in court....and you don't want them to be executed?
Do you think jail in a corrupt country like Indonesia is a punishment for these cretins?