Tony doesnt need notes, all he does is recycle the same 4 soundbites.Originally Posted by pv4
Stop the boats
Its all Labors fault
Kevin Rudd engages in negative politics (pot kettle black)
We will release those policies/costings in due course
rinse recycle repeat
As far as I was watching, Tony badly mishandled questions relating to his policy costings and how its going to be funded, same sex marriage and climate change.
Kevin badly stuffed up the 2nd Sydney Airport question.
Subscribe to The Jetstream Podcast http://www.newcastlefootball.net/podcast
Republika Novocastria!
The liberals sound like a bunch of kids that just got beaten in a lunchtime sports game - "Miss, it's not fair! They cheated!"
All accounts sum to zero.
Spending=Income
Government Budget Surplus = Non government deficit when Current Account is in deficit.
It is impossible for the non government sector to spend less than they earn if government budget is in surplus and current account is in deficit.
Politicians may lie but the National Accounting Identities are always true by definition.
Macroeconomics is still well and truly beyond the scope of the government and the opposition..
imagine all those gen y tech savvy meme creating labour lovers if it was abbott who did it
OK
My debate thoughts:
Rudd is always going to do better in these things. Abbott is a dead set statue. No surprises there.
The notes thing is all hooey. As much as he didnt follow the rules, why anyone thinks that a PM should be up to date on every stat for every department in every avenue of politix is deluded. Thats why they have ministers/departments/staffers. Its a quite a big deal running a country. Pollies should be allowed all the notes they need.
The same sex marriage thing is a typical leftie smokescreen. Yeah its a big issue to a minor section of society, and to be fair, why we are even debating marriage equality in 2013 still astounds me. This typical "Abbott hates fagz" stuff is bullshit. They had this motion last year, it was overwhelmingly defeated (the PM at the time voted NO in case you missed it) so for it to be the "big issue" out of the debate only fuels these idiots to promote more minor issues at the expense of the big ticket stuff in order to get headlines.
can anyone tell me how that whole Kyoto protocol thing is going?
regardless how he sells himself Abbott will always be a distant 2nd to Rudd. the thing is that the public has heard most of Rudds act before, so hes got a bigger mountain to climb in order to win back trust to his party.
.
no one 'wins' these things.
en efecto, tienes razón hombre.
en todo caso voy a votar por el revolucionario au revoir.
gracias por su amabilidad.
sÃ*, yo también llevo pantalones.
por favor, seguir adelante con mucho éxito y respeto.
joder ese tipo Middleby
granizo griff
For anyone wanting to see the full results on how the Pollies voted on the Marriage Equality motion tabled last year.
See here: https://www.getup.org.au/campaigns/m...ntatives-voted
The whole idea about the debate seems like its an opportunity to see if a leader will stuff up when the pressure is on. This is why the notes is wrong. I didnt see the debate but the highlights i saw looked like rudd had a prepared speech ready for every question.
Politics in australia is poor. both leaders are fools but the public are greater fools for voting for the leader not the party.
The most frustrating thing for me and im not being sexist but most women that I know, say they will never vote for abbot as they get a "bad vibe" from him even as far as thinking he seems abusive to women. yet when they see past reports of rudd where he has been caught out they say yeah but that was in the past and hes not as bad as abbott.
just shows how poor politics are in australia.
I agree with the gay marriage. I dont like how its been used as a publicity stunt for the election. I hate that marriage is used in politics. My personal beleif is that the churches should have say in this but if it was done in canberra id like the country as a whole to vote on it and let politicians focus on running the country.
Don't watch debates, question time would be more exciting, and Tony pulled the paper on Julia last time, that's why Kev got him back. Good one Kev
lololol....the churches (any of them) should not have a say in any aspects of our lives let alone legislations etc. Should we ask the Jedi's on their thoughts as well? I wonder if they could "stop the boats" lolololololololololololol
No, that would be the Trade Federation baz
(phantom menace joke)
Subscribe to The Jetstream Podcast http://www.newcastlefootball.net/podcast
I'm with baz (though currently we arent married) on the churches thing. seperation of church and state is vital, there is no way they should have any power to impact legislation. What has the legal and civil rights of anyone got to with a church? if churches dont support gay marriage, they dont have to perform the ceremony.
its not goin to matter who wins, the country will still be run by politicians.
lengthening the term of government might help allieviate so much of the short sighted nature of canberra,
everything is about surving the next three years rather than making long term decidions.
that, and how sexy the candidiates are. Abbott is a fool, hes done so well to hide his idiocy and slips up in campaign time. nufty.
Sir Humphrey would have a good laugh at politicians running the country Mr Fish
TA is the suppository of political knowledge in Australia however
Subscribe to The Jetstream Podcast http://www.newcastlefootball.net/podcast
a couple of things:
1. who has the right to define the word marriage? is it a church word or is it defined by the state. no one has ever really been able to answer that question for me. any legal eagles out there? in the same way i cant call my house a church because someone else dictates what a church is. who has the power to change it.
2. pollies need to remember that it is not just their opinion on whether to allow it or not, a pollies role is to represent their constituents in the house of parliament. agreed it should be a conscience vote but some of these people need to remember the real reason they are there. now that this issue has come to the fore, one would hope that everyone running for a seat makes his or her stance well known before the people decide.
i will vote for the party who allows that gays should be sentenced to years of misery through marriage, acknowledges that australia doesnt kill refugees but there is a need to fix corruption in indonesia, one who can keep priests out of kids and one that can manage australia's finances so that we can all afford a fking ice cream/carton on a sundee arv.
Thats a very good question.
The reason I beleive that the churches should have a say in gay marriage is because while growing up marriage was always said to be a ceremony performed by the church. This could be just my up bringing but ive always considered a wedding to be religious and/or spiritual.
Even if im wrong on this matter it should never be left in the hands of politicians. especially those that are only trying to gain votes to win an election.
there are much better ways to determine the validity of a relationship than by letting a holy man ensure that they have different genitals
a wedding is between two people who love each other - if they chose to make it religious or spiritual it is their choice
and you're right, it shouldn't be in the hands of politicians, it should be left to the people getting married
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote