Mega Thread Tony Abbott

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
If it wasn't this it would be something else, I hear the odds of the Coalition winning that seat have shortened since this scandal
 
Freo Big Fella said:
Laughing at the reaction to "sex appeal" as if it wasn't anything but a planned slip of the tounge.

I thought Real and Fake Julia was bad, but I can't wait for the hilarity that will be Peta Credlin and Brian Loughnane running Australia's first ever Prime-Minister-by-committee.
Click to expand...

Dunno about it being planned, but it sure won't do Abbott any harm in western Sydney imo.

Never ceases to amuse me that a forum mainly inhabited by male football fanatics is so cringeingly politically correct when it comes to what makes the world go round. :) Makes me wonder how many sheilas you guys can pull?

Come back JP Frogen :D
 

Log in to remove this ad.

I looked her up and thought sex appeal was a pretty big stretch (minger was the word that came to mind), but she'll be a looker in the halls of Hollywood for ugly people.
 
noddy said:
I beg to differ, if that person is both yours & Tones example of "sex appeal" personified then all i can say is you are easily pleased.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure you're in a position to comment noddy given that you rate Julia Gillard in the looks department
 
With the man up call and insinuating renewable energy as fringe he seems to have a definite plan to go the macho me route

I guess you gain as many stupid votes as you lose
 
GuruJane said:
Dunno about it being planned, but it sure won't do Abbott any harm in western Sydney imo.

Never ceases to amuse me that a forum mainly inhabited by male football fanatics is so cringeingly politically correct when it comes to what makes the world go round. :) Makes me wonder how many sheilas you guys can pull?

Come back JP Frogen :D
Click to expand...

Run along dear , man talk ( james bond )
 
Docker Clint said:
Reckons he wont form a minority government. What the hell is a coalition?
Click to expand...
A Coalition government is not considered a minority government, because they operate a joint party room.

Docker Clint said:
May have outsmarted himself by saying they'll put the Greens last.
Click to expand...
How so? I can't see much downside. It's pretty clear that in the event of a hung parliament, the Greens are not going to side with anybody except Labor. So they may as well just have an ALP member in the seat.

It's pretty funny hearing Milne's impotent rage over this decision. They want it both ways - to be lockstep with the ALP in the Senate, but to get Liberal preferences in the lower House. It doesn't work like that.

Now they are in the position to win HoR seats, they need to start offering the Coalition something if they want their support.
 
Caesar said:
It's pretty funny hearing Milne's impotent rage over this decision. They want it both ways - to be lockstep with the ALP in the Senate, but to get Liberal preferences in the lower House. It doesn't work like that.

Now they are in the position to win HoR seats, they need to start offering the Coalition something if they want their support.
Click to expand...

Yeah, being a protest outlet for disgruntled lefties is not a solid basis for a political party.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dan26 said:
So is the carbon tax. Everybody that turns on a light, or their heater will be wearing the cost of the carbon tax indirectly.

What's your point, anyway? You seem to be suggesting that because the carbon tax was "not as big a policy" as the GST, that it was therefore okay to not get a mandate for the carbon tax, and it was okay to lie about it. No, it was not okay. Gillard should have been honest with the Australian people, just as Howard was prior to the 1998 election.

Labor lied, and they lied to win an election.



They havn't lifted the tobacco tax. Parliament isn't sitting which means it isn't law. This will only happen after the election. Labor actually have a mandate for it, if they win the election. They did not do this with the carbon tax. And besides, it is plainly ridiculous to compare a cigarette tax with the carbon tax. A cigarette tax only affects smokers. The carbon tax affects everyone who uses energy - I.e everyone.



Surely you can't be serious?

She lied, and she did so because if she told the truth that she was implementing a carbon tax she would have lost the election. For you to suggest this is okay tells me more about you and your obvious Labor barracking than it does for anything else. It tells me that you think it is okay for Labor do anything unethical to win. A lot of left-wing people have this view because they believe they are morally superior. They believe it is okay to be unethical, because if you stop those evil conservatives from getting into power, it is all justified. It's one of the reasons I despise the left.

What Labor did was immoral, unethical, not to mention stupid policy-wise. A tax that does nothing for the temperature but makes it more expensive for people to live. In what world do grown adults think this is a good idea?



This is getting absurd. You are suggesting it is okay for labor to run a scare campaign, just because Abbott did against the carbon tax.

Abbott was within his rights to do this against the carbon tax because:

A.) Labor lied and implemented it when they said they wouldn't.
b.) It was a REAL policy, that was actually came into effect.
C,) and it was bad policy

Rudd has no rights to do this about the GST because:

A.) the Coalition havn't lied about anything. They have said they won't raise the GST, and I'm sure they won't for the first term, and if they did so in a second term, they would get a mandate
B.) it's not real policy. It's a hypothetical.
C.) The GST is not necessarily bad policy. Labor did not dismantle it in 2007 when they finally came into power, it has been in place for 15 years and Paul Keating himself championed the cause of a GST

To compare the scare campaign of the carbon tax against this GST nonsense is blatantly misleading, disingenuous and shameless.
Click to expand...

Nothing but scare mongering and propaganda, so you believe that big companies shouldn't have to be taxed to emit carbon emissions into the atmosphere?, Here's some information for you “Julia Gillard lied about the carbon tax”. FACT: Julia Gillard didn't even change her mind.
She was forced due to unexpected circumstances to make a compromise. This is not a lie, and no
amount of repeating the mantra will change this fact. She said that there would be no carbon tax
under the government she leads, and she meant it. An unforeseen circumstance occurred – a
minority government – which forced her to compromise on the nature of the carbon reduction
package.
The carbon tax will cost jobs. FACT – research undertaken in 2010 by the National Institute
of Economic and Industry Research shows that strong action on climate change will provide a
stronger economy with more jobs in almost every region in Australia, compared to weak action on
climate change. The intention of the carbon tax is not simply to wipe out polluting industries, but it
is to encourage them to make efficiency improvements. All changes require people and so many
efficiency improvements will produce jobs.

You want more facts, how about this:
: “The carbon tax will double electricity prices”. This one was spruiked by the Australian
Trade and Industry Alliance last year. FACT: if we assume that all costs of the $23 carbon tax are
passed onto consumers (hardly likely), the carbon tax will add exactly 2.8 cents to every kwH in
Victoria (based on NGER - National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting). This is a rise of 13%, based
on a current rate of 22 cents per kwH, hardly double. The carbon price would have to be a fanciful
$180 a tonne to double electricity rates!
The electricity prices will probably double, but it has nothing to do with the carbon tax. It is more to
do with the need to replace aging infrastructure, which is long overdue.
Your argument is all huff and bluff. Go and join the Liberal party with their "sky is falling" routine. Im sure they need more delusional conservatives such as yourself.
 
Caesar said:
A Coalition government is not considered a minority government, because they operate a joint party room.


How so? I can't see much downside. It's pretty clear that in the event of a hung parliament, the Greens are not going to side with anybody except Labor. So they may as well just have an ALP member in the seat.

It's pretty funny hearing Milne's impotent rage over this decision. They want it both ways - to be lockstep with the ALP in the Senate, but to get Liberal preferences in the lower House. It doesn't work like that.

Now they are in the position to win HoR seats, they need to start offering the Coalition something if they want their support.
Click to expand...
Not to mention how Nick Clegg and the Lib Dems have shot themselves in both legs by getting into bed with the Tories over there.

I do think it is a bit odd to be so against "minority govts" when you need the Nationals' votes to win a majority. I think it's a political position, rather than a considered position. I wonder how many more seats the Nationals need to lose to Libs before they decide to step up and separate completely.
 
The real Tony Abbott is starting to come out. He just can't help himself.

Even in the debate he almost referred to labor as "'this mob", aAgain parroting the right-wing media of NSW.
 
Here he goes again:

He went on to explain why he did not believe marriage equality was inevitable, likening the push to the failed bid for Australia to become a republic.

"There were many a few years ago who kept telling us a republic is inevitable," he said.
"If this country lasts for a thousand years quite possibly at some point we might be a republic but I don't think a republic is inevitable any time soon and similarly I don't see same sex marriage as inevitable."
 
Hodgepodge said:
Here he goes again:

He went on to explain why he did not believe marriage equality was inevitable, likening the push to the failed bid for Australia to become a republic.

"There were many a few years ago who kept telling us a republic is inevitable," he said.
"If this country lasts for a thousand years quite possibly at some point we might be a republic but I don't think a republic is inevitable any time soon and similarly I don't see same sex marriage as inevitable."
Click to expand...

I'm expecting a comment from Tone in the not to distant future on the benefits of females ironing out his wrinkles.
 
Ratts of Tobruk said:
I do think it is a bit odd to be so against "minority govts" when you need the Nationals' votes to win a majority. I think it's a political position, rather than a considered position.
Click to expand...
You can't really term the Coalition as a minority government, given how closely they work together. Running under a joint policy platform with a joint party room is completely different to negotiating an agreement with another party after an election.

Ratts of Tobruk said:
I wonder how many more seats the Nationals need to lose to Libs before they decide to step up and separate completely.
Click to expand...

The decline in Nationals seats doesn't really have anything to do with the Coalition agreement. It's mostly because of shifts in population demographics in the last 30 years, which are killing the party's base. Australia's population is growing, but only in major metropolitan and inner regional areas. Everywhere else it's in decline. The rural landed class, who represent core Nationals voters, especially so. There are half as many farmers in Australia as there were 30 years ago. 10% less than there were 5 years ago. Electoral demographics reflect that.

There is this perception that the Nationals are pushed around and ignored by the Liberals, but if anything it's the reverse. If you talk to Liberal Party members, they bitterly resent the quite disproportionate influence that the National Party has within the coalition. They represent a very small number of voters and do not hold very many seats, but those seats they do hold tend to be by a huge margin and they are vital to Coalition government.
 
raff23 said:
Nothing but scare mongering and propaganda, so you believe that big companies shouldn't have to be taxed to emit carbon emissions into the atmosphere?,
Click to expand...

Of course not. Carbon Dioxide isn't a pollutant -it's a nutrient There is not a single peer reviewed paper that shows empirical evidence that human emissons of C02 are the main driver of warming or that human emissons of C02 are dangerous. That's empirical evidence, as opposed to computer models all of which have over-estimated the warming.

The lack of empirical evidence to support the alarmists religion has led to a huge shifting of opinion on the science. We all know that C02 causes warming, and we all know that humans (who are putting it into the atmosphere) are therefore causing some warming. That's not what the debate is about. The debate is about HOW MUCH WARMING, and more importantly, is it dangerous? And the IPCC can't provide any empirical evidence to support the alarmism. What the catastrophic alarmists have done is taken a true fact and exaggerated it, and it is costing the world billions of dollars.

raff23 said:
“Julia Gillard lied about the carbon tax”. FACT: Julia Gillard didn't even change her mind.
She was forced due to unexpected circumstances to make a compromise. This is not a lie, and no
amount of repeating the mantra will change this fact. She said that there would be no carbon tax
under the government she leads, and she meant it. An unforeseen circumstance occurred – a
minority government – which forced her to compromise on the nature of the carbon reduction
package.
Click to expand...

Rubbish. The Greens would NEVER have sided with the Coalition. They were always going to side with Labor. There was no need to "change her mind on a carbon tax", because, quite simply, she didn't need to. The Greens would have formed government with her anyway.

She lied about the carbon tax, she didn't get a mandate for it, and this is one of the reasons - among many- why Labor will deservedly be spending years in opposition after September 7th.

raff23 said:
The carbon tax will cost jobs. FACT – research undertaken in 2010 by the National Institute
of Economic and Industry Research shows that strong action on climate change will provide a
stronger economy with more jobs in almost every region in Australia, compared to weak action on
climate change.
Click to expand...

Deliberately breaking every window in the country will lead to more jobs for window makers too. Maybe we should do that? :rolleyes: If you think taxing people, to reduce the temperature of the planet by 0.0004 degrees will create jobs, then you are an idiot.

It’s not rocket science. If energy costs more, that means we have to make do with less of it, or make do with less of something else. Thus if the government forces everyone to pay more for electricity, companies have less spare cash to employ people. Their margins are tighter, they can’t make and sell as many products. So when we are told the clean energy revolution is "creating jobs", its self-evident that it is a mythical fairy claim.


Each green job in Britain costs £100,000 (and 3.7 other jobs):
The Telegraph points out how expensive it is to support a wind-industry job.
  • A new analysis of government and industry figures shows that wind turbine owners received £1.2billion in the form of a consumer subsidy, paid by a supplement on electricity bills last year. They employed 12,000 people, to produce an effective £100,000 subsidy on each job.
  • “Among the examples of extremely high subsidies effectively for job creation is Greater Gabbard, a scheme of 140 turbines 12 miles off the Suffolk coast. It received £129 million in consumer subsidy in the 12 months to the end of February, double the £65million it received for the electricity it produced. It employs 100 people at its headquarters in Lowestoft, receiving, in effect, £1.3 million for every member of staff.” — Telegraph, 15 June 2013
  • In Scotland the VERSO study showed for each Green Job created, 3.7 were lost
In Spain for every green job created 2.2 jobs were lost:

“Calzada, an economist, studied Spain’s green technology program and found that each green job created in Spain cost Spanish taxpayers $770,000. Each Wind Industry job cost $1.3 million to create. But Calzada’s study found that for every four jobs created by Spain’s expensive green technology program, nine jobs were lost. Electricity generated was so expensive that each “green” megawatt installed in the power grid destroyed five jobs elsewhere in the economy by raising business costs​
​
​
​
In Italy, each green job cost 5 jobs from the rest of the economy:

“A study performed by Luciano Lavecchia and Carlo Stagnaro of Italy’s Bruno Leoni Institute found “the same amount of capital that creates one job in the green sector, would create 6.9 or 4.8 if invested in the industry or the economy in general, respectively”…​
“The researchers also found that the vast majority of green jobs created were temporary… – AEI ​
“The renewables industry was plagued with corruption. The mafia were caught laundering $1.7bn through renewables.​

raff23 said:
You want more facts, how about this:
: “The carbon tax will double electricity prices”. This one was spruiked by the Australian
Trade and Industry Alliance last year. FACT: if we assume that all costs of the $23 carbon tax are
passed onto consumers (hardly likely), the carbon tax will add exactly 2.8 cents to every kwH in
Victoria (based on NGER - National Greenhouse and Energy Reporting). This is a rise of 13%, based
on a current rate of 22 cents per kwH, hardly double. The carbon price would have to be a fanciful
$180 a tonne to double electricity rates
Click to expand...

The carbon tax increases costs, it means YOU pay more, and it does nothing for the environment.

That, my friend, is pure madness.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Remove this Banner Ad

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top