Gillard tells Abbott how it is

[Aussie]

No, why would I read it when I've already heard it.
So if they weren't at the uni where were they...

They were at Uni. That is correct.

[IQS.RLOW]

Conservative blokes are made of sterner stuff than you pudding like marsh mallows of the left, Aussie.

Was on the rugby field after Hockey went for his kidneys what happens on the field, stays on the field- not that you leftys would know anything about codes of ethics.
Your lot only excels at spiteful bitching and whining.

[IQS.RLOW]

Good grief how outta touch are you... they were at the uni(I think) playing football...

No, they were not. Did you read the link, Ratsack?

Why did you lie again Aussie?

[Aussie]

Conservative blokes are made of sterner stuff than you pudding like marsh mallows of the left, Aussie.

Was on the rugby field after Hockey went for his kidneys what happens on the field, stays on the field- not that you leftys would know anything about codes of ethics.
Your lot only excels at spiteful bitching and whining.

It was at a training session.............and it was Hockey who spilled the beans..............

What was that about a code of ethics?

[Rorschach]

STFU!
This is irrelevant to the topic.
I don't care who hit who in a football game.
Or who makes it public knowledge.
what I do care about is a hate campaign from the ALP headed by the PM which relies on lies and hypocrisy and is yet another attempt to divide our community in an attempt to stay in office... whatever it takes.

[Rorschach]

Gender card is a loser for Gillard
* by: Miranda Devine
* From: The Sunday Telegraph
* October 14, 2012 12:00AM

WATCHING Julia Gillard desperately flail around last week in the death throes of her government, you could wish her prime ministership had been different.

But as a woman I'm embarrassed, insulted and angry that the stocks of women in power have been brought so low.

Playing the gender card is the pathetic last refuge of incompetents and everyone in the real world knows it. It offends the Australian notion of the fair go.

Australians who were delighted, regardless of politics and the way she got the job, that a strong seemingly capable woman was in The Lodge, have been sorely disappointed, to the point of cynicism and despair, by Gillard's self-indulgent performance calling out Tony Abbott on misogyny.

Misogyny is the Taliban shooting a 14-year-old girl in the face because she wants an education, not an opposition leader directing legitimately forceful criticism against a government which, by its own admission, lost its way two years ago and has not found it since.

Gillard's impassioned speech has been praised globally, but her new international feminist fans don't realise the confected foundation on which it was built.

This was the best her huge stable of spin doctors could do to justify the accusations of misogyny.

It boils down to five charges:

That Abbott did make sexist remarks in 1998, during a discussion with then-NSW Treasurer Michael Costa about the under-representation of women in positions of power.

Costa: "I want my daughter to have as much opportunity as my son."

Abbott: "Yeah, I completely agree, but what if men are by physiology or temperament, more adapted to exercise authority or to issue command?"

Abbott wants his three daughters to have equal opportunities for powerful jobs, but asks whether men might have innate advantage. He wasn't asserting it as fact, but as a discussion point. It's worth pondering.

For instance, voice is important to demonstrate authority. Men with a booming baritone command attention.

Height is another issue. Men are usually taller than women, and height generally correlates with high office.

We all know people who command authority, male or female, just by the power of their personality. What qualities do they have that help them transcend any physiological deficits, and how can we learn from them?

The dearth of women in high places is not because of sexism any more than it is because they lack talent.

It is mainly because of individual women's choices. Many have passed up opportunities offered to them, in some cases ahead of equally deserving male colleagues, because they preferred to nurture their families. That's the real silent conversation.

Charge number two against Abbott:

That in 2004 he did say: "Abortion is the easy way out." The line comes from a nuanced speech which Abbott gave in 2004, in which he concluded: "Even those who think that abortion is a woman's right should be troubled by the fact that 100,000 Australian women choose to destroy their unborn babies every year."

Any reasonable person would conclude that he was no extremist, was respectful of different views, and compassionate about the plight of women with unwanted pregnancies.

This is the line which so offends the PM, in context: "To a pregnant 14-year-old struggling to grasp what's happening, for example, a senior student with a whole life mapped out or a mother already failing to cope under difficult circumstances, abortion is the easy way out. It's hardly surprising that people should choose the most convenient exit from awkward situations."

Abbott's offence is to hold different views on abortion to those of most Labor women. But is that a crime?

Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop said she, too, disagreed with Abbott on abortion, "but I respect his views. They happen to be different to those that I hold. That doesn't make him a sexist at all."

And she pointed out "when he was the health minister, at no time did he seek to change the laws in relation to abortion in this country".

So what Gillard objects to is that Abbott holds a different opinion to hers. That is a worrying trait in the country's most powerful person.

Charge three against Abbott: That he did make a throwaway remark about "housewives" ironing. Big deal.Charge Four: That he did say: "If the Prime Minister wants to, politically speaking, make an honest woman of herself." Whether he intended or not to use a turn of phrase associated with marriage, Abbott certainly has made the prime minister's honesty a central criticism, and one which bites electorally because of her broken promise on the carbon tax.

Charge Five: That he stood next to a sign that read: "Ditch the witch."

Abbott didn't know the sign was there when he addressed that carbon tax protest. He didn't create the sign or organise for it to be there. For sure it was offensive. But it's dishonest to pretend he was responsible. The elderly protesters that day behaved properly otherwise. They didn't smash down the doors of Parliament House like unionists had done, and they were offended at being branded a "convoy of incontinence" by Gillard ministers.

So Labor's entire case of misogyny against Abbott is a joke, yet all week long, ministers hit the airwaves to claim Abbott hates women.

Nicola Roxon, when pressed, could recall only one instance of Abbott's misogyny, complaining he "would refuse to acknowledge me and turn his back at functions". Even if that's true, it just means he has difficulty feigning regard for someone who has constantly taunted him.

For instance in 2010, Roxon stood in parliament with a box of golf balls and made raunchy "balls" jokes at Abbott's expense.

Sexism cuts both ways and if anyone cared to assemble a dossier of "mincing poodle" and other jibes from the government the game could go on forever.

But to what end?

With unemployment rising, the non-resources economy flatlining, the mining industry having peaked, carbon tax biting and superannuation under threat, the electorate views dimly the people who are supposed to be running the country running around playing gender politics instead. Especially on the 10th anniversary of the first Bali bombing.

We don't care if the prime minister is a woman or a man. We just want rational, prudent, even boring government. We want to be "relaxed and comfortable" again.

Once more we see commentators drawing the same if not similar conclusions about this issue and the PM's disingenuousness. Funnily enough I also concur.

[IQS.RLOW]

Good grief how outta touch are you... they were at the uni(I think) playing football...

No, they were not. Did you read the link, Ratsack?

Why did you lie again Aussie?

Bump for Aussie

[Aussie]

STFU!
This is irrelevant to the topic.
I don't care who hit who in a football game.
Or who makes it public knowledge.
what I do care about is a hate campaign from the ALP headed by the PM which relies on lies and hypocrisy and is yet another attempt to divide our community in an attempt to stay in office... whatever it takes.

Oh.....but......but......I am accused of lying. And...................umm..................umm.....................telling tales when all the while it was Joe.....telling us what happened at a training session when violence erupted between the two...... and Abbott the pugilistic prig who assaults women.....decked Hockey.

[mantra]

Good grief how outta touch are you... they were at the uni(I think) playing football... the number of black eyes and the exact result varies from telling to telling. Didn't you know? Sorry... of course you didn't. In Abbott's words it was he that was more often than not decked.
Most people I know who play football have at one time or another ended up in a fight.

Stop making excuses. Most people in football don't end up smashing their team mate's face in. Don't believe Hockey when he says he's forgiven Abbott. You don't forget or forgive that sort of aggression from a crazy man, which is how Abbott was described. As an older man who was once going to enter the priesthood - he shouldn't have reacted as violently as he did to a younger man's frustration. Late 80's would indicate that Abbott was in his late 20's, early 30's - whereas Hockey would have been a teenager.

[IQS.RLOW]

Where do you think this training session was held and was it in any way associated with uni rugby, Aussie?