Abbott has a Bachelor of Economics a Bachelor of Laws and a Master of Arts as a Rhodes Scholar Queens College Oxford so I dare say that he is far more intelligent than those on here criticizing him.

The fact that they would prefer Rudd, who is a self absorbed twit of the highest order, just confirms the stupidity of some.

That one poster has started his abuse of Abbott with the fact that he said one of his candidates has sex appeal confirms that stupidity, all the big issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott

BTW Rudd has a Bachelor of Arts Asian Studies, very impressive.

  On 14/08/2013 at 21:01, RobbieF said:

Abbott has a Bachelor of Economics a Bachelor of Laws and a Master of Arts as a Rhodes Scholar Queens College Oxford so I dare say that he is far more intelligent than those on here criticizing him.

The fact that they would prefer Rudd, who is a self absorbed twit of the highest order, just confirms the stupidity of some.

That one poster has started his abuse of Abbott with the fact that he said one of his candidates has sex appeal confirms that stupidity, all the big issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott

BTW Rudd has a Bachelor of Arts Asian Studies, very impressive.

I vote for neither Robbie (you conservative hack )but can the slow witted dumb-struck caflick trainee priest speak English without a script.Or Chinese?

If the Catholic Church paid for his Rhodes Scholarship then it really doesn't count does it? They pay lots of people to go away.

Does he seem intelligent to you?

Don't answer that last one.

Rhodes Scholar or not-KRudd looks like a genius next to the stuttering monk.

and you look like a crazy old crank every time you post.

  On 14/08/2013 at 21:01, RobbieF said:

Abbott has a Bachelor of Economics a Bachelor of Laws and a Master of Arts as a Rhodes Scholar Queens College Oxford so I dare say that he is far more intelligent than those on here criticizing him.

The fact that they would prefer Rudd, who is a self absorbed twit of the highest order, just confirms the stupidity of some.

That one poster has started his abuse of Abbott with the fact that he said one of his candidates has sex appeal confirms that stupidity, all the big issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott

BTW Rudd has a Bachelor of Arts Asian Studies, very impressive.

Again, criticising Abbott does not confirm support for Rudd. It doesn't work the other way around either.

  On 14/08/2013 at 23:22, Choke said:

Again, criticising Abbott does not confirm support for Rudd. It doesn't work the other way around either.

Yet you're far more at home criticising conservatives than the loony left.

  On 14/08/2013 at 21:01, RobbieF said:

That one poster has started his abuse of Abbott with the fact that he said one of his candidates has sex appeal confirms that stupidity,

  On 13/08/2013 at 12:57, Ben-Hur said:

Haha come in spinner.

You're just a [censored] stirring lefty that stoops to disingenuously use Abbott's religious beliefs as some sort of concern when those same beliefs don't have any control over his party or policy. And to think you thought you'd get an answer to all of your questions. Have you ever seen one of these "debates" before ?

YOU support a carbon dioxide tax that does nothing for the environment but needlessly taxes a nation. An impost for no gain. Why shouldn't there be a price on carbon? Why shouldn't people use excessive amounts be taxed on it? It encourages more moderate use.

YOU support a government that lied to the Australian people about a tax it said it would never have. That promise being made under the assumption they'd form their own government. When a minority government had to be formed, agreements had to be made with Greens and independents. That being one.

YOU support a government that needlessly encouraged people smugglers and caused deaths at sea. As opposed to an opposition that encourages asylum seekers to burn their boats and jump over board when they attempt to take them back out to sea. And then refuse to allow entry to our waters of foreign countries cargo ships that have rescued asylum seekers at sea and by international law we're obliged to take.... By the way it's not illegal to seek asylum by boat.

YOU support a government that wasted billions on numerous costly failed projects. As opposed to one that likes to keep the status quo apart from making cuts to the public sector with their surplus at all costs mentality.

YOU support a government that spent way too much to stave off a recession. No your right, because all the countries that were hit by the GFC are just looking back and laughing about it now wondering what the big deal was.

YOU support a government that has shambolically chopped and changed leaders such has been their policy failings. Tell me how many opposition leaders you went through again during Rudd's first term?

YOU support a government that sold out its heartland to lie in bed with the nutty greens. Because we all know that John Howard didn't go and find Meg Lees GST spot back in 1998. The death of the Democrats as I recall.

YOU support a government that won't be able to roll out its costly NBN in the next "how many" decades. 10 I think it currently is. I can wait that long, projects like this take time.

YOU support a government that promised a surplus, but never delivers. Which many experts agree was the right call in our current situation and will have minimal impact on our economy. http://www.australianbankingfinance.com/capital-markets/budget-deficits-won-t-impact-economy/

YOU support a government whose deficit changed by the billions - weekly. Not sure of the exact figure at the moment. I'd assume that's because the right wing faction of Labor are now in and giving themselves wriggle room the way the conservatives often do.

YOU support the most dysfunctional government since federation. Yet you say Abbott worries you ? It beggars belief. No wonder you have [censored] views on footy. Think Menzies beats you there when he lost contorl of his own party during WW2.

And Abbott is no more a church goer than your own fruitcake leader. His non threatening religious beliefs don't rule any policy within the party. To insinuate they do makes you either a fool or a liar. Religious beliefs don't paly any part for mine. We're all entitled to believe what we want to believe.

Put your hand up to both.

Enjoy the defeat. At least you're a Melbourne supporter, so I dare say you'll cope. Good chance Abbott will win and I hope if he does that the first batch of who knows how many 1000's loose their jobs that it's the people who voted Liberal that go first.

  On 15/08/2013 at 00:02, Ben-Hur said:

Yet you're far more at home criticising conservatives than the loony left.

Honestly haven't done much of either in this thread. I think they're both poor options.

Also it's an interesting assumption you make, this notion that I like to criticise conservatives more than the left. Perhaps on this forum, in the context of this thread and the carbon tax thread that is true, but I don't think that's enough of a sample size to make that claim about me in general. In my work and with contact with clients I can assure you there is a lot of Rudd criticism. I work a lot with retirees (and pre-retirees) and many changes the Labor government has made have been extremely frustrating to that demographic. Their constant monkeying with the concessional contributions caps is one example that is infuriating. Reducing the cap from $50,000 to $25,000, then increasing it to $35,000 a few years later and putting out a press release essentially saying "hey look at us, we're great, we increased the cap!" is the height of hypocrisy. I think their next press release might say something about increasing the chocolate ration.

Also I'm not sure how surprised you should be that there's criticism of Tony Abbott in a thread entitled "Tony Abbott is an international embarrassment'. Perhaps if there was a thread called 'Kevin Rudd is an international embarrassment', you'll get some posters going the other way.

  On 14/08/2013 at 21:11, Biffen said:

I vote for neither Robbie (you conservative hack )but can the slow witted dumb-struck caflick trainee priest speak English without a script.Or Chinese?

If the Catholic Church paid for his Rhodes Scholarship then it really doesn't count does it? They pay lots of people to go away.

Does he seem intelligent to you?

Don't answer that last one.

Rhodes Scholar or not-KRudd looks like a genius next to the stuttering monk.

and you look like a crazy old crank every time you post.

I guess you think, that's a stretch, he had someone else sit his exams.

And you sound like a typical left wing idiot that is so full of hate you can't see clearly.

If you had a job you would probably be able to afford a clue, but I guess you would rather have someone else pay for it. Thank goodness you don't count.

  On 15/08/2013 at 00:46, Tall Defence said:

Sorry Robbie F but it just shows how far he and obviously you are out of touch.

Fact of the matter is if I were to say that about any of my co-workers then if I wasn't fired, which there's every chance I would be, I'd be severely reprimanded. And this is a guy who's suppose to represent the country?

By the way if you looked at the whole post you'd see that was used as an example of how out of touch he is, as far as policies go you must be on the Liberal party inside because god knows what they are or how they'll be costed because they're sure as hell keeping everyone in the dark about it. But then again that's harsh of me to have a go at you for not doing your research, hell when Tony Abbott goes out and says BHP's decision put the Olympic dam on hold was due to the mining & carbon tax when if he had of looked at Marius Kloppers statement of the same day he would of seen those taxes had nothing to do with putting it on hold then why should anyway do research before making brash statements!

By the way I agree that Rudd is a twit, but Abbott's incompetent. The fact he couldn't convince two former National Party Members (now independents) to form a minority government with the Coalition and instead they committed political suicide by forming government with Labor, The Greens and a former Green (now independent) says it all. They well knew that the majority of voters in their seats would have prefered a Liberal minority government, however they clearly didn't believe that was in their voters best interests as Abbott wouldn't of had a clue of how to run a minority government. I think Tony Windsor and Rob Oakshot's decisions back in 2010 says a lot about the ability of one Tony Abbott.

That just shows how far this country has slipped when an off the cuff comment can cost someone their job and career; sad really.

BTW if you knew anything about Windsor you would know he hates the Nationals and has for a long time, he was never going to support the coalition nor was Oakshyte.

Anyway I'm on holidays and couldn't really give a [censored] what any of the lefties on here think so this is my final post and look at this thread; by the time I return it will be over anyway.

Just finally, you talk about costings but fail to mention that Labor had a $33b blow out in the budget in 11 weeks between handing down the budget and PEFO; now that's a hole.

  On 15/08/2013 at 01:20, Tall Defence said:

  On 13/08/2013 at 12:57, Ben-Hur said:

Haha come in spinner.

You're just a [censored] stirring lefty that stoops to disingenuously use Abbott's religious beliefs as some sort of concern when those same beliefs don't have any control over his party or policy. And to think you thought you'd get an answer to all of your questions. Have you ever seen one of these "debates" before ?

YOU support a carbon dioxide tax that does nothing for the environment but needlessly taxes a nation. An impost for no gain. Why shouldn't there be a price on carbon? Why shouldn't people use excessive amounts be taxed on it? It encourages more moderate use.

YOU support a government that lied to the Australian people about a tax it said it would never have. That promise being made under the assumption they'd form their own government. When a minority government had to be formed, agreements had to be made with Greens and independents. That being one.

YOU support a government that needlessly encouraged people smugglers and caused deaths at sea. As opposed to an opposition that encourages asylum seekers to burn their boats and jump over board when they attempt to take them back out to sea. And then refuse to allow entry to our waters of foreign countries cargo ships that have rescued asylum seekers at sea and by international law we're obliged to take.... By the way it's not illegal to seek asylum by boat.

YOU support a government that wasted billions on numerous costly failed projects. As opposed to one that likes to keep the status quo apart from making cuts to the public sector with their surplus at all costs mentality.

YOU support a government that spent way too much to stave off a recession. No your right, because all the countries that were hit by the GFC are just looking back and laughing about it now wondering what the big deal was.

YOU support a government that has shambolically chopped and changed leaders such has been their policy failings. Tell me how many opposition leaders you went through again during Rudd's first term?

YOU support a government that sold out its heartland to lie in bed with the nutty greens. Because we all know that John Howard didn't go and find Meg Lees GST spot back in 1998. The death of the Democrats as I recall.

YOU support a government that won't be able to roll out its costly NBN in the next "how many" decades. 10 I think it currently is. I can wait that long, projects like this take time.

YOU support a government that promised a surplus, but never delivers. Which many experts agree was the right call in our current situation and will have minimal impact on our economy. http://www.australianbankingfinance.com/capital-markets/budget-deficits-won-t-impact-economy/

YOU support a government whose deficit changed by the billions - weekly. Not sure of the exact figure at the moment. I'd assume that's because the right wing faction of Labor are now in and giving themselves wriggle room the way the conservatives often do.

YOU support the most dysfunctional government since federation. Yet you say Abbott worries you ? It beggars belief. No wonder you have [censored] views on footy. Think Menzies beats you there when he lost contorl of his own party during WW2.

And Abbott is no more a church goer than your own fruitcake leader. His non threatening religious beliefs don't rule any policy within the party. To insinuate they do makes you either a fool or a liar. Religious beliefs don't paly any part for mine. We're all entitled to believe what we want to believe.

Put your hand up to both.

Enjoy the defeat. At least you're a Melbourne supporter, so I dare say you'll cope. Good chance Abbott will win and I hope if he does that the first batch of who knows how many 1000's loose their jobs that it's the people who voted Liberal that go first

It's too difficult responding in the format you've used, but I'll finish by saying that the carbon dioxide tax is one of the great political cons. It's a tax grab for governments with no money. It has zero effect on reducing the world's temperatures, not the the earth has warmed in the last 16 years. Gullible fools are scared into thinking the world is warming alarmingly when it isn't. But I can't be bothered educating fools. Although there's a thread on it for you.

And yes, the government overspent big time during the GFC. Luckily Howard and Costello left these turkeys in a position to spend like drunken sailors - again. But of course the money is all gone and we have massive debt levels for which we can than Rudd.

Forty years ago my Father said that when Labor Governments get into power they spend spend spend. The liberals then have to balance the books, make hard decisions to get back into surplus, which doesn't endear them to the average worker, Labor gets back in and the cycle repeats itself. Not all Liberal Governments are good and not all Labor Governments are bad. Fraser was hopeless and Hawke's first years were excellent. But in the main I know who I'd trust with the economy. And it's certainly not your lot. I can't say whether Abbott would be a good prime minister, or not, but I know the answer when it comes to Rudd. Worst, or second worst since federation. You'd have to have the IQ of a house brick to consider the mob he leads.

Funnily enough, the only people that hate Rudd more than me are his own colleagues.

Btw, no need to waste more of each others time. I know what I'm dealing with.

  On 15/08/2013 at 06:40, Ben-Hur said:

Forty years ago my Father said that when Labor Governments get into power they spend spend spend. The liberals then have to balance the books, make hard decisions to get back into surplus, which doesn't endear them to the average worker, Labor gets back in and the cycle repeats itself.

My father says the exact same thing.

I hope we're not related.

  On 15/08/2013 at 06:50, Choke said:

My father says the exact same thing.

I hope we're not related.

Your Father is smarter than you.

Ben, should we add "climate scientist" to your resume, just before "Demonland villain" and directly after "antagonistic [censored]"?

Climate change is for "gullible fools". Precious. I'll have to let the rising sea levels know to quit faking it, Ben isn't buying. I was going to explain to you why Abbott's direct action plan is a complete farce, but given I'm dealing with someone who still believes it's all a lie, I won't bother.

Incidentally Benny, did you have a look at the PEFO? On track to return to surplus by 2016. Not great, but a far cry from the doom and gloom reports being thrown around by the other side.

Also, whilst you might form your opinion based on Labor v Liberal generalisations trotted out by dear old dad (Labor just spends spends spends!), you might want to delve a bit deeper. A recent IMF Report actually found the Howard government to be the most wasteful in our history. I can provide you with links if you like.

The number of spending decisions worth more than $1 billion went from one in Howard's first budget to nine in his last, and the proportion of savings measures fell from one-third of budget measures at the start of the Howard era to 1.5% at the end.

Expenditure increased from $197.2 billion in 2002-03 to $253.3 billion in 2006-07, or by an average of 6.5% a year. Under the Labor government, expenditure increased from $316.0 billion in 2008-09 to a projected $396.6 billion in 2013-14, or by an average of 4.6% a year (2007-08 being left out as it was shared). Had Labor increased its expenditure from 2008-09 by the same rate as the last four years of the previous government (6.5%), the figure for 2013-14 would be $433.0 billion, instead of $396.6 billion - a difference of $36.4 billion. And that's before we consider the GFC.

Howard paid off the debt not by good management but rather by selling off assets to his mates and offsetting the 1.5% budget deficit with a 2% increase in federal taxes.

But I realise you have your opinion formed. You probably attribute the mining boom to Howard as well, yeah? Labor is the wrecking ball and Liberal comes in and saves the day. It's that attitude that will see Abbott be elected, and to hell with his actual plans. Who cares what they are? Not important. He seems a trustworthy fella. Up with the times. Did I mention he's a Rhodes scholar?

  On 15/08/2013 at 08:05, P_Man said:

Ben, should we add "climate scientist" to your resume, just before "Demonland villain" and directly after "antagonistic [censored]"?

Climate change is for "gullible fools". Precious. I'll have to let the rising sea levels know to quit faking it, Ben isn't buying. I was going to explain to you why Abbott's direct action plan is a complete farce, but given I'm dealing with someone who still believes it's all a lie, I won't bother.

Take it to the appropriate thread.

And if you think there'll be a surplus by 2016 you're more moronic than i thought.

  On 15/08/2013 at 09:28, Ben-Hur said:

Take it to the appropriate thread.

And if you think there'll be a surplus by 2016 you're more moronic than i thought.

This is all you have really isn't it mate? Insult the [censored] out of everyone, and back that up with even more insults. I thought you did that just to troll the main board, but it appears that is just how you operate. Haha..how sad.

It doesn't matter whether or not I think that, Treasury does, as detailed in their independent report that is the most comprehensive they've ever done in terms of accounting for all possible outcomes, to avoid the inevitable criticism that comes with these projections. Sure as anything, Abbott fans won't pay any attention. Treasury? Pft. What would they know? Pass the Yellow Pages..

Maybe just stick to discussing footy and talking up your "footy IQ". You're more in your element there.

  On 15/08/2013 at 06:09, RobbieF said:

I guess you think, that's a stretch, he had someone else sit his exams.

And you sound like a typical left wing [censored] that is so full of hate you can't see clearly.

If you had a job you would probably be able to afford a clue, but I guess you would rather have someone else pay for it. Thank goodness you don't count.

Got a job thanks Robbie.

Not full of hate either.

I do count in an electoral sense also.

Wont be voting for a The brainy Rhodes Scholar who majored in Arts/Theology.

I think you might be living in 1957.

Your generation got a house/job/education all given to you pops.

I paid over the odds for all those things.

Conservative cranks like you are still riding up the back of a sheep.

Thank Goodness you will be in an old persons home soon farting in front of a photo of the Queen.

  On 15/08/2013 at 07:59, Ben-Hur said:

Your Father is smarter than you.

  On 15/08/2013 at 13:21, P_Man said:

This is all you have really isn't it mate? Insult the [censored] out of everyone, and back that up with even more insults. I thought you did that just to troll the main board, but it appears that is just how you operate. Haha..how sad.

That, or his other most common one is "I'll do as I please".

I was more then happy to provide him with some links and facts. All I got as a response was generalisations, insults and a "I know what I'm dealing with".

Negative posts from a supporter of a party that likes to play negative politics. Makes sense I guess.

Edit: Oh sorry, I meant "I'll please myself" I believe it is.

  On 16/08/2013 at 00:27, Tall Defence said:

That, or his other most common one is "I'll do as I please".

I was more then happy to provide him with some links and facts. All I got as a response was generalisations, insults and a "I know what I'm dealing with".

Negative posts from a supporter of a party that likes to play negative politics. Makes sense I guess.

Edit: Oh sorry, I meant "I'll please myself" I believe it is.

Jeez you're good.

You're defending Swan, who repeatedly said there'd be a surplus, when everyone knew there wouldn't be. Time after time he maintained there would be a surplus when it was patently obvious he couldn't deliver. You seem to conveniently overlook the blatant and embarrassing lies of this party. Typical.

Also, it's not just that there's a deficit, which in itself isn't a major problem, especially if the spending has helped drive the economy, although, as stated, they wasted billions as usual, but it's the continual changing of the deficit amount. How many billions of dollars did it change over a 3 month period ? And how many times did the figure change in that 3 months ? And how concerned were you by the goal posts that were majorly shifting ? Did you not raise your eyebrow ? No, probably not. You're a party drone. Which is why you're not worth bothering with.

But as stated, if you're keen on the carbon dioxide rort, there's a specific thread for it. Go and bump it and knock yourself out.

  On 13/08/2013 at 22:03, Biffen said:

If he wins he will get shafted by Turnbull.

No he won't.

Turnbull might be the darling of the inner-city progressives in Sydney and Melbourne, but take him into the 'burbs, or the regions, and you'll find that most people think he's a pompous [censored].

That he's the golden boy of Q and A pretty much sums it up.

  On 16/08/2013 at 06:12, Grapeviney said:

No he won't.

Turnbull might be the darling of the inner-city progressives in Sydney and Melbourne, but take him into the 'burbs, or the regions, and you'll find that most people think he's a pompous [censored].

That he's the golden boy of Q and A pretty much sums it up.

The poll numbers don't support that.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/we-want-malcolm-turnbull-voters-say-20130719-2q87x.html

Preferred Lib leader to Abbott, 51% to 16%.

Preferred PM to Rudd, 65% to 35% (compared with Rudd being ahead of Abbott)

These are the results of nationwide polls of up to nearly 3000 people.

I think what say might have been true at one stage, but Turnbull's stock has risen considerably on account of who he is up against.

  On 16/08/2013 at 06:53, P_Man said:

The poll numbers don't support that.

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/federal-election-2013/we-want-malcolm-turnbull-voters-say-20130719-2q87x.html

Preferred Lib leader to Abbott, 51% to 16%.

Preferred PM to Rudd, 65% to 35% (compared with Rudd being ahead of Abbott)

These are the results of nationwide polls of up to nearly 3000 people.

I think what say might have been true at one stage, but Turnbull's stock has risen considerably on account of who he is up against.

You're not aware of Turnbull's poor polling when he was actually the Liberal party leader ?

Labor supporters love Turnbull, but plenty of Liberals didn't support his direction. I loathe his views on the carbon dioxide fiasco to start with.

That said, one can't help but like the guy; and he most definitely has the charisma that nearly all politicians lack. It's just a pity he has some of the views he does - for me anyway.

I'd vote for Liberal if Turnbull was leader of the party however he won't be any time in the near future; he doesn't have anywhere near enough support within the party.

  On 15/08/2013 at 21:23, Biffen said:

Got a job thanks Robbie.

Not full of hate either.

I do count in an electoral sense also.

Wont be voting for a The brainy Rhodes Scholar who majored in Arts/Theology.

I think you might be living in 1957.

Your generation got a house/job/education all given to you pops.

I paid over the odds for all those things.

Conservative cranks like you are still riding up the back of a sheep.

Thank Goodness you will be in an old persons home soon farting in front of a photo of the Queen.

I wasn't going to go back to this thread but someone alerted me to the crap you posted about me.

Firstly I was born in to a working class family and raised by my father who was a shop steward in the Tramways board where he worked as a painter. He was a real Labor man who would turn in his grave to see what it's turned in to now and he would be appalled at the imbeciles like you who would support it in its current form.

As far as my conservative background and getting everything handed to me, I actually worked 3 jobs at one time to support my family while I was getting my business up and about and unlike you I never complained about it. I've always paid my way and never received a cent of Government money for my kids or my house which I doubt you could say, I'd bet you've been on the public purse most of your life, in one way or another.

So I've never ridden on anyone's back, unlike you, who seem to have some sort of unhealthy fetish for Alpacas and I doubt I'll beat you to the old people's home but if I did I would respect for them because they are the ones who have paid their taxes and made life easier for the ones that followed.

Now off you go and fiddle with a few more Alpacas, that's if they still give you the time of day and don't fart in your face if you put it in the wrong place.

  On 16/08/2013 at 17:55, RobbieF said:

I wasn't going to go back to this thread but someone alerted me to the crap you posted about me.

Firstly I was born in to a working class family and raised by my father who was a shop steward in the Tramways board where he worked as a painter. He was a real Labor man who would turn in his grave to see what it's turned in to now and he would be appalled at the imbeciles like you who would support it in its current form.

As far as my conservative background and getting everything handed to me, I actually worked 3 jobs at one time to support my family while I was getting my business up and about and unlike you I never complained about it. I've always paid my way and never received a cent of Government money for my kids or my house which I doubt you could say, I'd bet you've been on the public purse most of your life, in one way or another.

So I've never ridden on anyone's back, unlike you, who seem to have some sort of unhealthy fetish for Alpacas and I doubt I'll beat you to the old people's home but if I did I would respect for them because they are the ones who have paid their taxes and made life easier for the ones that followed.

Now off you go and fiddle with a few more Alpacas, that's if they still give you the time of day and don't fart in your face if you put it in the wrong place.

  On 16/08/2013 at 17:55, RobbieF said:

I wasn't going to go back to this thread but someone alerted me to the crap you posted about me.

Firstly I was born in to a working class family and raised by my father who was a shop steward in the Tramways board where he worked as a painter. He was a real Labor man who would turn in his grave to see what it's turned in to now and he would be appalled at the imbeciles like you who would support it in its current form.

As far as my conservative background and getting everything handed to me, I actually worked 3 jobs at one time to support my family while I was getting my business up and about and unlike you I never complained about it. I've always paid my way and never received a cent of Government money for my kids or my house which I doubt you could say, I'd bet you've been on the public purse most of your life, in one way or another.

So I've never ridden on anyone's back, unlike you, who seem to have some sort of unhealthy fetish for Alpacas and I doubt I'll beat you to the old people's home but if I did I would respect for them because they are the ones who have paid their taxes and made life easier for the ones that followed.

Now off you go and fiddle with a few more Alpacas, that's if they still give you the time of day and don't fart in your face if you put it in the wrong place.

Bitter But Optimistic is the Alpaca Fancier , FYI.

Your shop Steward father might turn in his grave to see what the Tramways Union looks like? IDGAF.

Also dont give a hoot about your paper round and your job at Maccas.Hard to say you never complained because that's all you do now.

Good drunken effort though-wish you luck following the suppository of wisdom on the campaign trail.

Also-I don't receive any government money-but I did get the baby bonus which was a hare-brained conservative idea to breed more sheep like you.

It's a pity you were allowed to breed at all.

Hope you have a severe hangover today after that drunken-slapper effort of a post.

Strength to the Bogan Conservative cause-you are everywhere ,you are the common man in every sense,so your man should win.