OUT: Abbott IN: Turnbull

[Earl Hood 5,789]

You can read anything you like into it, if you want to.

Pathetic hoody.

I am happy to stand by my comments. It's a cheap shot. And by the way my name is not hoody, I am The Hood, arch criminal, master of disguise and the nemesis of certain International Rescue organisations!

[Dee Fan 3,247]

I am happy to stand by my comments. It's a cheap shot. And by the way my name is not hoody, I am The Hood, arch criminal, master of disguise and the nemesis of certain International Rescue organisations!

As I said pathetic and it's hoody with a small h, you've lost the right to be known as The Hood.

[P-man 13,168]

When you are a liberal supporter you are subject to scrutiny and when you make a statement you are asked to provide 3 or 4 sources to back up your allegation; all I'm doing is asking the same of you. It's not good enough to just say everyone knows it and they have shared agendas give me a source.

Not that I care but you know what I mean. BTW I can't stand the woman and would much prefer she was one of yours so when I read she had donated to the Labor party I was very happy.

Oh! that's right you aren't a Labor voter are you.

Okay Rob, removal of the mining tax. Stab in the dark, is Gina for or against?

Actually, I'm not doing this again mate. You just don't give an inch on the most fundamental things. Gina has no leanings whatsoever. You win. Great article.

I vote on policy and yes, I'm alot more closely aligned to Labor but I'm not wed to them. I'm sorry I don't fit into a box.

Edited February 3, 2014 by P-man

[Guest]

I'm a bit distracted at the moment and getting a bit old so I can't recall saying that the boats weren't setting out for Australia; perhaps you can refresh my fading memory.

As for your totalitarian regime I'll just put this down to your trying too hard to show that Abbott is a [censored] and that anyone that supports him a member of the storm troopers.

Just remember your credibility disappears very quickly if you make really stupid statements and on an internet blog that can be fatal.

You seem to be hung up on the phrase 'totalitarian regime'. I am not saying that the entirety of the Abbott Government is totalitarian (and as I said earlier, having lived in a country ruled by a dictatorship, we aren't even close to that) but this policy smacks of something a banana republic dictatorship would pull. Unprecedented secrecy and a complete disregard for human rights. Heightened rhetoric sometimes is called for. I was just as concerned with other policies pursued by the Labor party so this isn't merely an Abbott thing (i.e. the PNG solution).

Thanks for the info from the ABC website via the YouTube. Unfortunately, sometimes people actually read what is said when you recommend sites to others. If you actually look at the site, you will notice for starters that it clearly states there is definitely a media blackout on commenting on reporting upon boat arrivals, detention centers and incidents at sea. The only people who will find this are the people who actually go looking for it. This lack of accessible information for all the government's constituents is worrying to say the least.

Reading between the lines, there appears to be a set of numbers here that the coalition didn't like as it wouldn't allow them to live up to their 'promise' (up till December the numbers had reached 1106 in 3 months with two incidents in which nearly 200 people each were recorded to have made the journey) so they, as I have said before, moved the goal posts to suit their own purposes. The underlying logic (stated earlier by yourself Robbie) that seems to be that this policy will somehow stop people making the journey by boat in fear of the consequences of them being intercepted. The magic 6 weeks arrival period mooted by the coalition is presented there but we hear from Scott Morrison himself that it is government policy 'and practice' to remove these boats beyond our territorial waters. When pressed further on this, he refused to mention the number of times this has happened. Indonesian sources have said that the number of turn arounds is in the ball park of 5 to 10. When pressed again on this during the Senate inquiry, Morrison again has refused to mention how many boats have entered Australian waters and as stated in this article, stuck to a tightly managed definition of 'arrival'. There was no mention of boats who had headed out to make the journey but gone turned back. According to the policy goals mentioned earlier, this seems like a deliberate attempt to distort these numbers via omission.

Based on all of this, it would appear that from late December/January onwards, the policy definition 'rules' were changed to justify this barbarism.

Let's now look at it another way and you do raise a good point about the RAC/Newscorp article and it's claims of asylum seekers dying in the jungle. Let's say it was merely a claim and not the truth. If the Abbott government wanted to actually discredit misinformation campaigns such as this, wouldn't they go out of their way to be transparent? The same applies to the asylum seekers/burns story. It can also be applied to the 5/10 times mark listed earlier. Get the facts out there and the truth will set you free. Instead, we see an immigration minister stonewall. The website mentioned that the government would not comment about incidents at see and they are definitely keeping up that end of the bargain.

Oh and as for Andrew Bolt. The reason why we don't take him seriously is because he makes statements regarding why we shouldn't have more women in parliament as they are more likely to be into new age lifestyles which leads to witchcraft. There is also his rank hypocrisy in constantly slagging off the ABC when he has received quite a bit of income from them and a platform to spread his nonsense over the years (Insiders, the show he hosted with Jon Faine on 774, the time when he stormed the 774 studio to have a go at Stephen Mayne despite the fact that he already had the opportunity to berate him over the callback line). Or this little incident.

P.S. Put frankly, the debate about whether the boats are stopping is a false one. I have been over this previously but as I don't want to go over that in detail again, I'll refer you to my previous posts. I gotta get up at 5 tomorrow morning so it's time for bed now.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Colin B. Flaubert

[Earl Hood 5,789]

As I said pathetic and it's hoody with a small h, you've lost the right to be known as The Hood.

Robbie what about this! You wouldn't guess it's me would you. The Hood master of disguise!

[Dee Fan 3,247]

You seem to be hung up on the phrase 'totalitarian regime'. I am not saying that the entirety of the Abbott Government is totalitarian (and as I said earlier, having lived in a country ruled by a dictatorship, we aren't even close to that) but this policy smacks of something a banana republic dictatorship would pull. Unprecedented secrecy and a complete disregard for human rights. Heightened rhetoric sometimes is called for. I was just as concerned with other policies pursued by the Labor party so this isn't merely an Abbott thing (i.e. the PNG solution).

Thanks for the info from the ABC website via the YouTube. Unfortunately, sometimes people actually read what is said when you recommend sites to others. If you actually look at the site, you will notice for starters that it clearly states there is definitely a media blackout on commenting on reporting upon boat arrivals, detention centers and incidents at sea. The only people who will find this are the people who actually go looking for it. This lack of accessible information for all the government's constituents is worrying to say the least.

Reading between the lines, there appears to be a set of numbers here that the coalition didn't like as it wouldn't allow them to live up to their 'promise' (up till December the numbers had reached 1106 in 3 months with two incidents in which nearly 200 people each were recorded to have made the journey) so they, as I have said before, moved the goal posts to suit their own purposes. The underlying logic (stated earlier by yourself Robbie) that seems to be that this policy will somehow stop people making the journey by boat in fear of the consequences of them being intercepted. The magic 6 weeks arrival period mooted by the coalition is presented there but we hear from Scott Morrison himself that it is government policy 'and practice' to remove these boats beyond our territorial waters. When pressed further on this, he refused to mention the number of times this has happened. Indonesian sources have said that the number of turn arounds is in the ball park of 5 to 10. When pressed again on this during the Senate inquiry, Morrison again has refused to mention how many boats have entered Australian waters and as stated in this article, stuck to a tightly managed definition of 'arrival'. There was no mention of boats who had headed out to make the journey but gone turned back. According to the policy goals mentioned earlier, this seems like a deliberate attempt to distort these numbers via omission.

Based on all of this, it would appear that from late December/January onwards, the policy definition 'rules' were changed to justify this barbarism.

Let's now look at it another way and you do raise a good point about the RAC/Newscorp article and it's claims of asylum seekers dying in the jungle. Let's say it was merely a claim and not the truth. If the Abbott government wanted to actually discredit misinformation campaigns such as this, wouldn't they go out of their way to be transparent? The same applies to the asylum seekers/burns story. It can also be applied to the 5/10 times mark listed earlier. Get the facts out there and the truth will set you free. Instead, we see an immigration minister stonewall. The website mentioned that the government would not comment about incidents at see and they are definitely keeping up that end of the bargain.

Oh and as for Andrew Bolt. The reason why we don't take him seriously is because he makes statements regarding why we shouldn't have more women in parliament as they are more likely to be into new age lifestyles which leads to witchcraft. There is also his rank hypocrisy in constantly slagging off the ABC when he has received quite a bit of income from them and a platform to spread his nonsense over the years (Insiders, the show he hosted with Jon Faine on 774, the time when he stormed the 774 studio to have a go at Stephen Mayne despite the fact that he already had the opportunity to berate him over the callback line). Or this little incident.

P.S. Put frankly, the debate about whether the boats are stopping is a false one. I have been over this previously but as I don't want to go over that in detail again, I'll refer you to my previous posts. I gotta get up at 5 tomorrow morning so it's time for bed now.

Sorry Colin, I got to the part where you said pull and lost interest.

Have a good nights sleep and re read what you wrote, then ask yourself what has that got to do with anything. Unlike some on here I'm not interested enough to get on to a long, drawn out, no win on either side, debate on this matter. Save it for your next visit to (pick any totalitarian regime) or god forsaken part of the world like the Middle East. And no I'm not a catholic or a Christian.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Robbie what about this! You wouldn't guess it's me would you. The Hood master of disguise!

You are a master of something hoody but if I completed the word I'd get banned. Good night masked one.

[DemonFrog 1,347]

A liberal party convention

Mr Abbott showing off again

[Guest]

Sorry Colin, I got to the part where you said pull and lost interest.

Have a good nights sleep and re read what you wrote, then ask yourself what has that got to do with anything. Unlike some on here I'm not interested enough to get on to a long, drawn out, no win on either side, debate on this matter. Save it for your next visit to (pick any totalitarian regime) or god forsaken part of the world like the Middle East. And no I'm not a catholic or a Christian.

That's a fair cop out Robbie. Find one part of an argument you dislike to try to dismiss the rest. Can you tell me how this is not completely undemocratic and in-transparent? Also, have you lived in a dictatorship?

The facts are that your side wins when this debate relies on glib talking points and shallow analysis to sustain it. That's how the Coalition can end up fooling the 60% of the Australian people into believing that most boat arrivals are not genuine refugees (the number of boat arrivals being actual refugees is somewhere around 90%) Delve deeper into this issue and I find it hard to believe that anyone can take the pro-detention side.

My feeling is that the more numbers and facts that get thrown in here, the less your appetite for a debate will be.

Edited February 3, 2014 by Colin B. Flaubert

[hardtack 10,126]

As I said pathetic and it's hoody with a small h, you've lost the right to be known as The Hood.

I didn't and won't watch it... the cheap shot with the names telegraphed the intent, so no point.

Oh, and do you seriously believe you have the right to hide behind the name of one of our club's great champions?

[DemonFrog 1,347]

BBO joins the Liberal Party

[DemonFrog 1,347]

HT, The Hood and CBF I think you guys have worn down poor old Robbie and Ben Her with good old fashioned logic and reasoning.

[P-man 13,168]

Rob - I can't let the absurdity of refuting that Gina Rinehart is a Liberal sympathiser rest. I just can't.

You could always google, "why would a mining magnate support a party that will repeal a mining tax?", because apparently that isn't blatantly [censored] obvious.

Or you could look up Abbott's speech at the IPA dinner where Rinehart sat at the head table, and he confirmed a "big yes" to many of their of their 75 policies, including:

Repeal the carbon tax - Number 1 on the IPA list
Abolish the Department of Climate Change - Number 2 on the IPA list
Abolish the Clean Energy Fund - Number 3 on the IPA list
Develop northern Australia - Number 42 on the IPA list
Repeal Mining Tax - Number 43 on the IPA list
Create a one stop shop for environmental approvals - Number 44 on the IPA list

A happy coincidence that these policies stand to directly benefit Hancock Prospecting. When Gina stood on a flat bed truck shouting "axe the tax!", she could have been channelling Tony himself ffs. When you ask me about similar agendas, these are the agendas to which I prefer.

But failing all that, if that isn't enough to convince you of their alignment, here are three separate incidents which attest to her history of Liberal ties. Note that this is in addition to her monetary donations such as that towards Joyce's campaign in New England. I know in advance that you will either rubbish the source, or claim they mean nothing, but acknowledging this has been a waste of my time, here they are:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gina-rinehart-meets-coalition-mps-in-secret-trip-to-canberra-20131113-2xh77.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gina-rinehart-route-to-political-influence/story-fn59niix-1226346272376#

Bryant writes that Mrs Rinehart, who was in her early 20s at the time, was a key participant in her father's Pilbara tours in the mid- to late-70s.

Guests chosen by Mrs Rinehart included Mr Kroger, the Liberal Party powerbroker who later became her senior legal counsel; Senator Abetz, who became a Howard government minister; Michael Yabsley, who became federal Liberal Party treasurer; and Mr Costello, the future federal treasurer.

Recalls one of the men who made the journey: "It was like a big kids' school excursion. But it was a Learjet rather than a bus."

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/may/1340006623/nick-bryant/what-gina-wants

Yet no one I spoke to thought Rinehart would readily give up her drive for influence and acknowledgement. Last June, in a faint echo of the ‘Hancock Benefit Tours’, Rinehart flew on a private jet to attend the Bollywood-style $20 million wedding celebrations for the granddaughter of GV Krishna Reddy, the Indian industrialist who acquired her coal mines in Queensland three months later. Accompanying her were the Liberal Deputy Leader, Julie Bishop, Liberal MP Teresa Gambaro and Senator Barnaby Joyce.

Gina understands better than anyone the power of influence. It is plain disingenuous to deny that she has not used hers to the fullness of her capabilities by latching on to a party whose policies stand to benefit her the most. Whilst it might have made you "happy" to read that she donated to the ALP, I've already quoted from that same article, to show that is not really the case.

I'm done with this now. You just deny, deny, deny, and when a point is raised that cancels out an argument you just don't acknowledge it and attack the person presenting it.

But for the benefit of someone else reading this, I wanted to clarify that Rinehart's political leanings are irrefutable, and your stuck in the mud views don't change that. She has never been a bigger key player than she is with Abbott as PM.

[Guest]

Rob - I can't let the absurdity of refuting that Gina Rinehart is a Liberal sympathiser rest. I just can't.

You could always google, "why would a mining magnate support a party that will repeal a mining tax?", because apparently that isn't blatantly [censored] obvious.

Or you could look up Abbott's speech at the IPA dinner where Rinehart sat at the head table, and he confirmed a "big yes" to many of their of their 75 policies, including:

Repeal the carbon tax - Number 1 on the IPA list

Abolish the Department of Climate Change - Number 2 on the IPA list

Abolish the Clean Energy Fund - Number 3 on the IPA list

Develop northern Australia - Number 42 on the IPA list

Repeal Mining Tax - Number 43 on the IPA list

Create a one stop shop for environmental approvals - Number 44 on the IPA list

A happy coincidence that these policies stand to directly benefit Hancock Prospecting. When Gina stood on a flat bed truck shouting "axe the tax!", she could have been channelling Tony himself ffs. When you ask me about similar agendas, these are the agendas to which I prefer.

But failing all that, if that isn't enough to convince you of their alignment, here are three separate incidents which attest to her history of Liberal ties. Note that this is in addition to her monetary donations such as that towards Joyce's campaign in New England. I know in advance that you will either rubbish the source, or claim they mean nothing, but acknowledging this has been a waste of my time, here they are:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gina-rinehart-meets-coalition-mps-in-secret-trip-to-canberra-20131113-2xh77.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gina-rinehart-route-to-political-influence/story-fn59niix-1226346272376#

Bryant writes that Mrs Rinehart, who was in her early 20s at the time, was a key participant in her father's Pilbara tours in the mid- to late-70s.

Guests chosen by Mrs Rinehart included Mr Kroger, the Liberal Party powerbroker who later became her senior legal counsel; Senator Abetz, who became a Howard government minister; Michael Yabsley, who became federal Liberal Party treasurer; and Mr Costello, the future federal treasurer.

Recalls one of the men who made the journey: "It was like a big kids' school excursion. But it was a Learjet rather than a bus."

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/may/1340006623/nick-bryant/what-gina-wants

Yet no one I spoke to thought Rinehart would readily give up her drive for influence and acknowledgement. Last June, in a faint echo of the ‘Hancock Benefit Tours’, Rinehart flew on a private jet to attend the Bollywood-style $20 million wedding celebrations for the granddaughter of GV Krishna Reddy, the Indian industrialist who acquired her coal mines in Queensland three months later. Accompanying her were the Liberal Deputy Leader, Julie Bishop, Liberal MP Teresa Gambaro and Senator Barnaby Joyce.

Gina understands better than anyone the power of influence. It is plain disingenuous to deny that she has not used hers to the fullness of her capabilities by latching on to a party whose policies stand to benefit her the most. Whilst it might have made you "happy" to read that she donated to the ALP, I've already quoted from that same article, to show that is not really the case.

I'm done with this now. You just deny, deny, deny, and when a point is raised that cancels out an argument you just don't acknowledge it and attack the person presenting it.

But for the benefit of someone else reading this, I wanted to clarify that Rinehart's political leanings are irrefutable, and your stuck in the mud views don't change that. She has never been a bigger key player than she is with Abbott as PM.

The entire family, dating back to Lang Hancock, have always had an affection for right wing politics. Lang and John Singleton were two of the key players behind the Worker's Party in the '70's.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

That's a fair cop out Robbie. Find one part of an argument you dislike to try to dismiss the rest. Can you tell me how this is not completely undemocratic and in-transparent? Also, have you lived in a dictatorship?

The facts are that your side wins when this debate relies on glib talking points and shallow analysis to sustain it. That's how the Coalition can end up fooling the 60% of the Australian people into believing that most boat arrivals are not genuine refugees (the number of boat arrivals being actual refugees is somewhere around 90%) Delve deeper into this issue and I find it hard to believe that anyone can take the pro-detention side.

My feeling is that the more numbers and facts that get thrown in here, the less your appetite for a debate will be.

That wasn't a cop out Colin I read the only part of the post that I was remotely interested in.

You may think you are interesting and that all your posts are enthralling but I don't. And no I haven't lived in a dictatorship but I can see that you are dying to let me know, once again, that you have.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Rob - I can't let the absurdity of refuting that Gina Rinehart is a Liberal sympathiser rest. I just can't.

You could always google, "why would a mining magnate support a party that will repeal a mining tax?", because apparently that isn't blatantly [censored] obvious.

Or you could look up Abbott's speech at the IPA dinner where Rinehart sat at the head table, and he confirmed a "big yes" to many of their of their 75 policies, including:

Repeal the carbon tax - Number 1 on the IPA list

Abolish the Department of Climate Change - Number 2 on the IPA list

Abolish the Clean Energy Fund - Number 3 on the IPA list

Develop northern Australia - Number 42 on the IPA list

Repeal Mining Tax - Number 43 on the IPA list

Create a one stop shop for environmental approvals - Number 44 on the IPA list

A happy coincidence that these policies stand to directly benefit Hancock Prospecting. When Gina stood on a flat bed truck shouting "axe the tax!", she could have been channelling Tony himself ffs. When you ask me about similar agendas, these are the agendas to which I prefer.

But failing all that, if that isn't enough to convince you of their alignment, here are three separate incidents which attest to her history of Liberal ties. Note that this is in addition to her monetary donations such as that towards Joyce's campaign in New England. I know in advance that you will either rubbish the source, or claim they mean nothing, but acknowledging this has been a waste of my time, here they are:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/gina-rinehart-meets-coalition-mps-in-secret-trip-to-canberra-20131113-2xh77.html

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/gina-rinehart-route-to-political-influence/story-fn59niix-1226346272376#

Bryant writes that Mrs Rinehart, who was in her early 20s at the time, was a key participant in her father's Pilbara tours in the mid- to late-70s.

Guests chosen by Mrs Rinehart included Mr Kroger, the Liberal Party powerbroker who later became her senior legal counsel; Senator Abetz, who became a Howard government minister; Michael Yabsley, who became federal Liberal Party treasurer; and Mr Costello, the future federal treasurer.

Recalls one of the men who made the journey: "It was like a big kids' school excursion. But it was a Learjet rather than a bus."

http://www.themonthly.com.au/issue/2012/may/1340006623/nick-bryant/what-gina-wants

Yet no one I spoke to thought Rinehart would readily give up her drive for influence and acknowledgement. Last June, in a faint echo of the ‘Hancock Benefit Tours’, Rinehart flew on a private jet to attend the Bollywood-style $20 million wedding celebrations for the granddaughter of GV Krishna Reddy, the Indian industrialist who acquired her coal mines in Queensland three months later. Accompanying her were the Liberal Deputy Leader, Julie Bishop, Liberal MP Teresa Gambaro and Senator Barnaby Joyce.

Gina understands better than anyone the power of influence. It is plain disingenuous to deny that she has not used hers to the fullness of her capabilities by latching on to a party whose policies stand to benefit her the most. Whilst it might have made you "happy" to read that she donated to the ALP, I've already quoted from that same article, to show that is not really the case.

I'm done with this now. You just deny, deny, deny, and when a point is raised that cancels out an argument you just don't acknowledge it and attack the person presenting it.

But for the benefit of someone else reading this, I wanted to clarify that Rinehart's political leanings are irrefutable, and your stuck in the mud views don't change that. She has never been a bigger key player than she is with Abbott as PM.

Well done P, you've managed to establish that Gina is a Liberal supporter.

This is what I want to know about, where did you get this from and show where it was $700k.

Ah, the old "you can't be that naive/gullible/stupid" line. Vintage Robert. The fact is that he's the candidate she chose to back, and 50K is certainly enough to make a difference to the campaign in ONE seat. It was actually rumoured to be up to 700K, but let's take Barnaby on his word..

Edited February 3, 2014 by RobbieF

[Guest]

That wasn't a cop out Colin I read the only part of the post that I was remotely interested in.

You may think you are interesting and that all your posts are enthralling but I don't. And no I haven't lived in a dictatorship but I can see that you are dying to let me know, once again, that you have.

Now we are getting started up. I have been as civil as I can be but now you have let rip with that little pearler...

Facts are your arguments are just the same pizz weak talking points that people on your side of the debate spew mindlessly. When you have something that remotely backs up what you say then come talk to me. If arrogance and hubris counted as an argument, then you would have streeted me. If my arguments are so 'uninteresting' and stupid, then please take me to pieces. Facts are you can't. All you can do is chortle at yourself. By the way, was I incorrrect about the ABC website you bought up?

[Guest]

The pro-detention forces in a nutshell:
“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

[45HG 1,539]

I can't really comment on the best boat policies - but I sure know the treatment of many people who have reached our waters has been despicable and will, in all probability, be something we as a nation look back on with regret.

Especially our treatment of children.

http://www.theage.com.au/federal-politics/-31xg7.html

[P-man 13,168]

Well done P, you've managed to establish that Gina is a Liberal supporter.

This is what I want to know about, where did you get this from and show where it was $700k.

Ah, the old "you can't be that naive/gullible/stupid" line. Vintage Robert. The fact is that he's the candidate she chose to back, and 50K is certainly enough to make a difference to the campaign in ONE seat. It was actually rumoured to be up to 700K, but let's take Barnaby on his word..

Deadset, are you effing kidding?

This is what you posted Rob:

Give me some facts P show me some substance.

If you don't I won't lose any sleep but it would be nice to see where you get your info from. It wouldn't be the age or the abc would it? They are light on facts too.

When you are a liberal supporter you are subject to scrutiny and when you make a statement you are asked to provide 3 or 4 sources to back up your allegation; all I'm doing is asking the same of you. It's not good enough to just say everyone knows it and they have shared agendas give me a source.

So, I do that. And your response is a sarcastic "well done" as if I've proven something that's obvious (which I don't disagree with but you were the plonk who was questioning it) with a follow up about a completely separate matter that you hadn't yet questioned me on.

This is what I"m talking about with failure to acknowledge. Jesus Christ, you'd almost make a good politician the way you divert and seemingly blank out to things you say.

I said it was rumoured to be up to 700K. I also said let's take Barnaby on his word. So you're asking me to prove a rumour that I have dismissed, is that right? I"m not going to do that. I can provide you to links of the rumour if you would really like. The rumour I've dismissed.

Discussion is not usually quite so pointless with you. I'm going to put it down to you attempting to carry on a few at once. You probably shouldn't, on this evidence.

[jazza 1,323]

which one is the hoody?

his disguise is so good he can do anything

new found respect hoodster

robbie will probably start shooting everybody in white until the real" hoody " gives up

Edited February 3, 2014 by jazza

[DemonFrog 1,347]

which one is the hoody?

his disguise is so good he can do anything

new found respect hoodster

robbie will probably start shooting everybody in white until the real" hoody " gives up

Here he is

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Deadset, are you effing kidding?

This is what you posted Rob:

So, I do that. And your response is a sarcastic "well done" as if I've proven something that's obvious (which I don't disagree with but you were the plonk who was questioning it) with a follow up about a completely separate matter that you hadn't yet questioned me on.

This is what I"m talking about with failure to acknowledge. Jesus Christ, you'd almost make a good politician the way you divert and seemingly blank out to things you say.

I said it was rumoured to be up to 700K. I also said let's take Barnaby on his word. So you're asking me to prove a rumour that I have dismissed, is that right? I"m not going to do that. I can provide you to links of the rumour if you would really like. The rumour I've dismissed.

Discussion is not usually quite so pointless with you. I'm going to put it down to you attempting to carry on a few at once. You probably shouldn't, on this evidence.

Good, does that mean you'll stop annoying me now?

I'm not sure how many ways I can tell you that I don't really care. Block me, that will make you feel much better.

[Dee Fan 3,247]

The pro-detention forces in a nutshell:

“Anti-intellectualism has been a constant thread winding its way through our political and cultural life, nurtured by the false notion that democracy means that 'my ignorance is just as good as your knowledge.'”

Yes the Intellects always look down upon those without two university degrees, in much the same way the accuse the left of looking down on the refugees; sort of like second class citizens. Intellectual snobbery at its best, you've got two haven't you;I think I recall you telling all of us somewhere along the line.

BTW, Not all of us have lived in a dictatorship and I guess most wouldn't want to, but to each his own.

Edited February 3, 2014 by RobbieF

[Dee Fan 3,247]

Now we are getting started up. I have been as civil as I can be but now you have let rip with that little pearler...

Facts are your arguments are just the same pizz weak talking points that people on your side of the debate spew mindlessly. When you have something that remotely backs up what you say then come talk to me. If arrogance and hubris counted as an argument, then you would have streeted me. If my arguments are so 'uninteresting' and stupid, then please take me to pieces. Facts are you can't. All you can do is chortle at yourself. By the way, was I incorrrect about the ABC website you bought up?

No need to get nasty.

You'll forgive me if ICGAF what you think if me, won't you?