The Rudd -vrs-Abbott Debate

[Rorschach]

Could explain her changing her avatar to one more disparaging, her latest topic and her blatantly more biased manner.

[Neferti]

Could explain her changing her avatar to one more disparaging, her latest topic and her blatantly more biased manner.

She uses that avatar over at Monk's twitterblog ... which seems to have died. That's why they are here and avoid even the Politics area at OzPol and prefer to talk about here (in Relationships) over there, or cats.

[mellie]

Why would he have to? He won.... channel 7 with the largest vote and most mainstream journos agree on that.

And the other Channels, Roach...............just for balance, given how not rusted on you are?

Will Rudd be 'gifting' television networks the way he did in 2010?

Recall the 2010 scandal of the Federal Government’s $250m “gift” to TV networks?


Rudd complains about Abbott and Murdoch getting cosy, though forgets his own pre-electoral TV network sweetening.



He may even have a "quiet" arrangement with them this time ... this is, will "gift" them after the election should he win.

[mantra]

The Leftards can see Rudd losing. It is a fait accompli. Like rats on a sinking ship, they will hang on for dear life until the final death knell.

I am rather surprised that mantra hasn't gotten her tits in a tangle about Abbott putting the Greens LAST, thus effectively finishing them off, for good.

Both leaders are useless as far as I'm concerned and both of them want to rid Australia of the Greens forever and replace them with the radical Shooter's Party. The Greens want to preserve and the Shooters Party want to eradicate.

Let's hope the Greens' support remains steady and if anything this move by both major parties to put the Greens' last will disgust a lot of people. Maybe the majority don't want them in government and that's fair enough, but to replace them with the Shooters Party is as low and destructive as you can get.

The Smokers Party - an offshoot of the Shooters Party will come before the Greens.

[Jovial_Monk]

Both Parties MAY want to be rid of the Greens—and some of that is the Greens own fault! Unreasonable, fighting the battles of the 80s. A Party of protest not government.

The demise of the Greens by the next election will be a victory for the environment movement, not a loss.

But you go a bit far saying both parties support the Shooters Party—it is only Barry O’Farrel doing that, to get his privatisation of the electricity generators through the Upper House.

[mantra]

Both Parties MAY want to be rid of the Greens—and some of that is the Greens own fault! Unreasonable, fighting the battles of the 80s. A Party of protest not government.

The demise of the Greens by the next election will be a victory for the environment movement, not a loss.

But you go a bit far saying both parties support the Shooters Party—it is only Barry O’Farrel doing that, to get his privatisation of the electricity generators through the Upper House.

It is not just O'Farrell's doing and he has to give them a lot in exchange for getting their co-operation to pass any legislation. He relies on them heavily. The Shooters & Fisher's Party also has Federal candidates. They will be preferenced before the Greens by both Labor and the Coalition.

Unless you have blinkers on - you can see where this is going and how these recreational hunting parties will influence our destiny. We need to preserve some of Australia from mining exploitation and amateur hunting. The Shooters Party want people, including children, to be armed if they choose - so if they gain some power, they will get their policies passed and we will just follow the US route.

[Jovial_Monk]

Maybe the Greens might learn from that. They have to become a party of government not protest but show little sign of doing that. SHY losing her Senate spot might actually turn out to be a good thing for the Greens.

But the Greens, like the LNP, were quite happy to accept people would drown trying to get here and for that I will NEVER support them.

They have also lost a lot of support among inner city professionals, their third part of their support base, along with trots and others from the Socialist Left of Labor and NIMBYs they supported, even to the extent of campaigning against some windfarms. Their fucking around with the CPRS and Gillard’s scheme will count heavily against them too.

Also, this is an election fought on economics—regardless of what the two megalomaniacs, Kevvy and Piss&Moan campaign on, people are worried about their jobs. The irony is, Piss&Moan will impose austerity, especially after Costello hands in his botch job of an Audit Report, and that will cause recession. Just look at Campbell Newman and Qld—unemployment soaring and the deficit double what they started with! He lied, too, during the election campaign.

The irony might be that Abbott PM may be the reason IQ loses his job, and Naffy struggles on her fixed income from super. Rudd would keep the NBN rollout going and start infrastructure projects to support employment.

[mantra]

Maybe the Greens might learn from that. They have to become a party of government not protest but show little sign of doing that. SHY losing her Senate spot might actually turn out to be a good thing for the Greens.

But the Greens, like the LNP, were quite happy to accept people would drown trying to get here and for that I will NEVER support them.

The Greens had no influence on the Government when Rudd put an end to the Pacific Solution. They are not responsible for the deaths - Labor is - and the Coalition before them.

The Greens say that we should go and collect these people safely - definitely not what the majority of Australians want, but at least the drownings would stop.

[Jovial_Monk]

No, the Greens voted against the Malaysian Solution, SHY shedding corocodile tears. They are as guilty as the LNP!

The Greens are stupid. Do they want us to fly here all 40m refugees from around the world? Come on mantra, you aren’t stupid! There has to be a number the Greens would accept—then when that number is reached what will they do then?

Also—the Greens think Australia needs a sustainable population, this clashes with their fly them all in non–policy.

As to flying in all those who make it to Indo—that does nothing for the real deserving refugees rotting in refugee camps they are too poor to move away from.

No—the Greens need to sit down and go through their policies and make them a lot more consistent and realistic.

[mantra]

No, the Greens voted against the Malaysian Solution, SHY shedding corocodile tears. They are as guilty as the LNP!

The Greens are stupid. Do they want us to fly here all 40m refugees from around the world? Come on mantra, you aren’t stupid! There has to be a number the Greens would accept—then when that number is reached what will they do then?

Also—the Greens think Australia needs a sustainable population, this clashes with their fly them all in non–policy.

As to flying in all those who make it to Indo—that does nothing for the real deserving refugees rotting in refugee camps they are too poor to move away from.

No—the Greens need to sit down and go through their policies and make them a lot more consistent and realistic.

It is already pre-ordained that our population has to reach 50 million in the next couple of decades and the Greens aren't part of that. The Greens haven't suggested we go and collect all 40 million refugees, only those who try to come here by boat from Indonesia.

Everyone was against the Malaysian Solution. It made no sense - even if we forget the human right violations aspect, we would have to take 10 Malaysian refugees to every one we gave them in exchange.