The interesting sound of silence.

[drron]

Another soft issue critic. What about the budget fix?

Thanks for proving my point.

 

[Moody]

Made my comment 2 days ago-OT post41422.
Saying anything else here is pointless as already being demonstrated.

Without even reading the post you refer to I absolutely agree with you.

TBH I prefer the silence to the alternative of listening to people defending the indefensible. It's just embarrassing.

 

[DC3]

Possibly everyone is gobsmacked...

Yes, we are all possibly gobsmacked by the captain's call.


Edit: If only old Ming was here to see the Australian dames and the knights being resurrected.

 

[dajop]

The Milky Bar Kid had old Rupert's support in 2007...

Exactly my point.

 

[BAM1748]

Great letter in today's Australian.

Julia had Kevin undermining her, but Tony has managed to undermine himself. :mrgreen:


Matt

 

[SFSC]

Whe should all bear in mind that it may have been possible for Tony to make a worse nomination for the knighthood. He could have nominated himself.

 

[Skyring]

Yet two years ago I was blasted on here because my reasons for not liking Abbot were deemed to be not good enough for many. I'm still wary about engaging in this thread at all because of it.

You can have whatever reasons you like for not liking somebody. They can be as reasonable or as silly as you want. Others may disagree with your views, and call them silly or stupid or ignorant or whatever. That's the way it is when people disagree. You do the same, I am sure, if you think other's views are shallow.

But when it comes to voting, it's up to the individual. There is no test on intelligence or evidence. No reasoning need be provided. Votes can be and are cast on such things as whatever how to vote card is uppermost at the time, "That candidate has a lovely smile in the photograph, I'll vote for him."

And that's fine. Because if we force people to vote against the way they want to, then it's no longer democracy.

Voltaire's words are apposite here.

It's also a matter of giving someone a fair go. Rudd in 2010 was on track to be tossed out by the voters. Paul Kelly's book "Decline and Fall of the Rudd Empire" is specific on this point. It may be that Abbott is going the same way for different reasons. It's up to the voters, really.

Directly at an election, or indirectly through the party, especially backbenchers in marginal seats.

 

[Skyring]

We should all bear in mind that it may have been possible for Tony to make a worse nomination for the knighthood. He could have nominated himself.

That would have been a better nomination IMHO. A much clearer connection to Australia.

But that's not the way things are done. If he wants a knighthood, then he makes nominations for people who have served in high public office, such as Governors-General, Prime Ministers, Chiefs of the Defence Force and so on, and when he leaves office after a long and distinguished career in government, then he might reasonably expect to receive a nomination from his anointed successor.

At the moment, I can't see this strategy panning out.

 

[Skyring]

Great letter in today's Australian.

Julia had Kevin undermining her, but Tony has managed to undermine himself. :mrgreen:

Kevin was certainly white-anting Julia, but she kicked a lot of own goals off her own bat.

Tony, on the other hand, is doing all the heavy lifting by himself. The Opposition and the Coalition both seem to be united in the faintness of their criticism. If Anthony Albanese was Opposition Leader instead of Shorten, then Tony would be feeling a lot more heat.

 

[medhead]

Thanks for proving my point.

That you don't like to hear I told you so?

The fact is: You told us Abbott was the saviour of Australia. Yet he has so far demonstrated all the traits that you criticised in the last government, only worse. The only reason I can see for you not defending the Abbott is because you don't want to eat humble pie. To put in doctoring terms the cute is worse than the cause.

The try to pretend that asking you to back up your previous vocal support is anything other than a valid question is insulting. Especially after all the abuse you and others threw at me for rejecting idiotic three word catchphrases.

 

[get me outta here]

Interesting article in the SMH today from Waleed Aly:

The PM's woes started earlier than you think

 

[blackcat20]

You can have whatever reasons you like for not liking somebody. They can be as reasonable or as silly as you want. Others may disagree with your views, and call them silly or stupid or ignorant or whatever. That's the way it is when people disagree. You do the same, I am sure, if you think other's views are shallow.

But when it comes to voting, it's up to the individual. There is no test on intelligence or evidence. No reasoning need be provided. Votes can be and are cast on such things as whatever how to vote card is uppermost at the time, "That candidate has a lovely smile in the photograph, I'll vote for him."

And that's fine. Because if we force people to vote against the way they want to, then it's no longer democracy.

Voltaire's words are apposite here.

It's also a matter of giving someone a fair go. Rudd in 2010 was on track to be tossed out by the voters. Paul Kelly's book "Decline and Fall of the Rudd Empire" is specific on this point. It may be that Abbott is going the same way for different reasons. It's up to the voters, really.

Directly at an election, or indirectly through the party, especially backbenchers in marginal seats.

But someone should not be made to feel unwelcome because of their views, as I was. I actually took a Break from AFF because of it. There's a fine line between disagreeing with someones view, and harassing them because of it.

 

[DC3]

Whe should all bear in mind that it may have been possible for Tony to make a worse nomination for the knighthood. He could have nominated himself.

We will soon have Sir John Winston Howard.

 

[tgh]

Given the self serving nature of today's pollies.. his magnanimous gesture to the good Duke was probably a down payment on his own gong.

It was a truly amazing error of judgement that is probably terminal for him as a pollie.. so who is next ?
Malcolm in the middle (who stands for ??) .. or our own Iron Lady .. ( who really does look like leadership material )

 

[DC3]

Dame Bronnie?

 

[Skyring]

But someone should not be made to feel unwelcome because of their views, as I was. I actually took a Break from AFF because of it. There's a fine line between disagreeing with someones view, and harassing them because of it.

I feel a little harassed by one or two here. When comments are aimed at the person, rather than the opinions, that's going too far.

An example. I was recently on a study course, where we were divided up into small groups under tutors. Each group had a student "monitor", who organised the students, making sure they were in the classroom at the right time and so on. On the last day, we had various tasks to do one evening at a time when people were getting dressed and ready for the activity. Our tutor came down, found the men in the group gathered around, and asked for the monitor, "Where's Susan?" presumably so that he could issue instructions to her.

She wasn't there. Very likely she was still upstairs, competing in the women's quarters for the limited bathroom facilities available. The men had life a lot easier, as there were fewer of us.

"Ah, I think she's taking a shower," I piped up. "I'll go and look for her, shall I?"

He looked at me. "That's ridiculous!" he said, and did the organising himself.

Of course my sense of humour verges on the absurd, and I was highlighting the fact that none of we men could reasonably go up to the female side of the house where the ladies might be found in a state of déshabillé. Susan would come down when she was ready.

I didn't take his response personally. It was aimed at my comment, not me. If he's said, "You're ridiculous!" that might have been different.

Anyway, that's my philosophy. We're all people and all entitled to be respected and listened to. But the things that come out of our mouths aren't necessarily worthy of respect, and it is no attack to point out any failings there. Impolite, perhaps, but it is through discussion that we arrive at the truth, and highlighting incorrect statements is one way of doing that.

Perhaps the answer is that we should not take our own views and opinions, especially when unexamined and unpolished, as representing the true essence of our selves.

 

[Revolio]

Dame Bronnie?

Probably the year before we get Sir Tony.

 

[drron]

Probably the year before we get Sir Tony.

Tony Hancock is getting a gong!:shock::shock:

 

[JohnK]

Yet two years ago I was blasted on here because my reasons for not liking Abbot were deemed to be not good enough for many. I'm still wary about engaging in this thread at all because of it.

By who?

It appears Abbott is useless. No real surprise. It doesn't mean that Gillard, Rudd or Shorten would do any better. In fact 2 of those are failures already and the 3rd will only get into power due to protest vote against Abbott.

Hawke set the bar high. Not a fan of Howard. I think Costello would have been the logical choice had Howard not hung on too long.

Can't stand fanatical party politics.

 

[dajop]

Hawke set the bar high. Not a fan of Howard. I think Costello would have been the logical choice had Howard not hung on too long.

I think Beazley would have made a good PM had he been given the opportunity, and maybe things would have worked out better for the ALP (and arguably the country). Alas he was deemed unelectable by the powers that be.

But gone are the days of strong, effective leaders. The 24-7 news cycle, insatiable appetite for controversy, short term focus on instant results and pervasive social media are all working against any sort of constructive politics - or indeed effective leadership.