nutbean

Rudd's performance during the Gillard years should just about disqualify him and then if you want to pay any attention to the noise about how he treated his staff then I more that suspect you are spot on.

Seriously ? Football is a team sport. You have little understanding of football clubs and good culture if you think that is acceptable. I understand that clubs stagger returns to preseasons based on age and appropriate player loads but if you are trying to build a culture of "team first", the notion that a player can take a longer holiday because he plays well is contrary to good culture building. Rance is in the leadership group - you want your leadership group setting some sort of example - first on the track and last off. I'll pose the question - where do you draw the line ? Dusty as you said has been great too - lets let him come back late as well. Jake Lloyd has been one of their better performing players - maybe a week later for him ? Vickery on the other hand - make him come back 2 weeks early ? Once you make exceptions for players based on anything other than age and health, you are on a slippery slope.

I don't write players off as quickly as some (ok...I'm guilty of not writing off players at all when I should !). In my mind I was not sure that Billy would make it - has some pace but not lightening and not tall so marking is not one of his features. I was trying to figure out his strong suite but was struggling. I have been pleasantly surprised with his progress. His strength is he can find space and does run to good spots and when he gets the ball he is very neat by hand and foot. He won't be a contested ball beast but he goes when he it is his turn to go. I am hoping his form will continue to improve as we have the inside grunt players - we need some silk on the outside and Billy is providing that.

I tend to agree except you would then remove about 50% of AFL footballers. So many one sided footballers ...still....

Petracca - was a pretty good 14 disposal game. The dawes and Kent passes ( besides bruising teamates because of how hard and fast they travelled) were sublime. I am salavating at the thought of another preseason and him getting 25 plus disposals a game.

So Tyson got votes On SEN, The Age, The HS and was named in the 3 best on the AFL. So I will ask - did you watch the game ? It is not that I disagree that Tyson's disposal can improve but I would suggest that for some reason your dislike of Tyson blinds you to what he brings to the side. If Tyson was Usain Bolt, after winning the 100 metres at the Olympics you would comment that he "chews with his mouth open".

We have missed you Bluey. You take forums to a whole new level of cray cray....

Really ? I liked that Bradshaw was hard at it but I thought his disposal, like many, was off. i thought Frost looked very safe today. Just rewatched the game and can confirm joeboys comments are Tyson are, politely, plain wrong. Turned a few over but was very constructive. The comment that he regularly butchered the ball is just plain wrong.

I will say that you have to be a bit of a dill to line up something on the side and it turns out to be your wife..

Do no play frost forward again ever. He is such a natural back man.

As did plenty others. Yet you consistently can't find a positive comment on Tyson. AVDB had a quarter and a bit of football that was horrific but fought back well. i love Harmes guts but he butchered ball badly...that escaped your notice ? Tyson played a very good game today or didn't you watch ?

Nooooo I wouldn't...it wasn't a perfect game by any stretch but he was in our top 3 players and I suspect when all the "experts" have their say most will put him in their votes.

I put my money on Tyson being "prolific but wasteful"...damn...

Prolific but wasteful - getting in early on the '3 words'

A little off to the side of your post Daisy took me task on this last time but I am going to repeat it - the oft used word in political circles "mandate" in my mind is so poorly used by politicians. Politicians keep harping on about a mandate to do this and that. I think the last time a Government had a mandate was in 2004 when Howard won a majority in BOTH houses of parliament. (someone will correct me if I am wrong) Since then all Governments have been empowered to do is put forward their policies as legislation and negotiate with Senators to get it enacted. When a Government does not have a majority in the Senate all it says to me is a majority of the public is happy enough for a Government to put forward it's platform but want strong oversight by the Senate to make sure that only the policies with more universal support get enacted. I have heard from so many that they are sick of Governments having to deal with obstructionist Senates and legislation constantly getting knocked back. The facts will tell you otherwise - if people were truly sick of this circumstance the they would strongly vote to have a Government win both houses of Parliament. The only mandate Turnbull has is to have the primary voice to put forward his policy agenda. He then has responsibility to ensure he can satisfy the Senate and get it enacted.

The sarcasm was lost on me - I am guessing that I need to look up the definition of sarcasm. I have no idea what you do or don't support. You suggest your comment was innocuous - Pauline Hanson believes we are in danger of being swamped by Muslims and I pointed out the very small percentage of Muslims in this country. I pointed out the folly of her assertion - yet your only response was - the percentage is now more ?? Your comment was either lending weight to her argument or completely redundant to the debate. Not a pompous few but everyone thinks that they should be represented by the people that they agree with - that's why we have elections. And although the system does change, in the main, we get people in parliament that represent the voters and that's purely based on the notion that everyone who is in Parliament is there because under the current system, enough people for voted for them to put them there. As to the idea that the public service runs the Government and not politicians I would basically say - rubbish. The public service implements politicians/party/Goverment policies ( with varying degrees of success). So the public service decided to repel the carbon tax ? So the public service decided to repeal the mining super profits tax ? So the public service (navy ) decided the turn back the boats policy. Think back to the implementation of the GST -are you telling me that the public service decided to exempt fresh foods from the GST ( for the record it was the Democrats who had no control over the public service, who would only pass the GST legislation through the senate with the fresh food exemption and they won a fair share of environmental policy concessions). Hanson was voted in and deserves her voice - whether she is smart enough or her policies are right to me is not irrelevant - this is a democracy - she is in public office and she will receive scrutiny. Because as happened last time she was in parliament - when she stood for re-election a lot of irrelevant people like myself who thought she was not smart enough or her policies weren't right didn't vote for her and she was not re-elected. The idea of a democracy is I am not irrelevant.

batting two for two - i will keep on going.

There are two separate issues - but you did roll them into one - "you will be called all the foul names and denigrated on the front pages of the Age and any ABC show that involves current affairs, politics or talk back". Social media - must exclude "traditional media" like the Age, the HS or the ABC. "Foul names" is rife on social media from all sides of the political spectrum The Age, The ABC, the Herald Sun and current affair shows or talk back - you need to differentiate between reporting the news and opinion/commentary. Again all sides of the political spectrum do this and it varies from criticism to denigration. It is not a one way street,

The interesting thing for me is I am very politically "engaged" but at the end of the day I am only arguing over how I want Australia to look and be perceived and act as a country/society. Selfishly, with either political party in power it has very little "real" impact on my life. I pay a bit more tax, I pay a little less tax. The hospitals get a bit better, they get a bit worse ( I have top tier health cover soooo.) Climate change - different policies, different parties and whilst my view is well known here the one thing i do agree with is that Australia's contribution is meaningless in real terms. Gay marriage - I am very vocal on this but I'm not gay so zero impact. Indigenous issues - I am not aboriginal. And so on...For the last 20 years nothing either party in power has done has radically altered my life. The likes of Pauline Hanson will have zero impact on me as what she espouses firstly doesn't affect me and secondly her policy "excesses" will never implemented. So looking at politics/politicians and parties in real terms I need to look outside my own existence as I have a view of what I want Australia to look like and how i want "Australia" towards it's people other than myself. Realistically ? It makes zero difference to my life.

What is frightening to me is you would have to assume that more than one person has read the published policies. I read the policy briefs of 6 parties and 5 of them (ALP, Libs, Greens, Pirate party, Nick X) can't really be picked apart as they are so "motherhood" and are completely lacking in detail. The One Nation policies on their website have more holes than swiss cheese. ( just in case you were wondering - One of ON's policy is " they oppose the introduction of Sharia law - phew - I was particularly worried that this was imminent).

Ummm - you do understand what you are saying. The simple answer is that the majority of muslims in this country are peaceful because there is no evidence to the contrary. Does there need to be sensible discussion about the radicalisation of youth and terrorism which is a global phenomena ( albeit, in countries like France there are other factors that do no exist in this country that is helping to fuel radicalistion ) - absolutely.

Just wow..... you are really prone to the "giant leap"... sooooo Firstly - nowhere did I say she should resign. You do understand the role and job spec of a politician/leader of of party/parliamentarian ? She, like all in this field are paid ( by us. the taxpayer, by the way) to put up policy and propositions and be scrutinised by the public. They are paid to represent US in parliament and by extension on the global stage. Therefore you better believe what she says and how she says it should be scrutinised. My opinion is she is clearly not educated enough to speak on issues as she continually gets her "facts" so wrong. She cannot logically articulate a position. But nowhere did i say she should resign or shut up - Again, if you read what I have said elsewhere - I have said the exact opposite - I think she is good for the political process as there is enough people who support her opinions and therefore I like the Hansons of the world in the spotlight so their "policies" can be logically debated. She will not and should be forbidden and I think you are the only person suggesting this - she should be elected or not elected - its up to the voters. But if any person wants to be in parliament they need to be prepared to have their arguments and they way they present scrutinised and critically evaluated. As to your last comment as the percentage of muslims - since you decided to bite back. First you will note that I did highlight it was old figures so since you opened the door - a simple question - is Australia in danger of being swamped by Muslims ? yes or no ? ( by the way - if you answer no then "you are a fool with your head buried in the sand" - not my words - they are Pauline's).

alright - i will keep on keeping on !

I thought she has improved from her previous efforts but she has problems stringing three coherent words together. I will agree it showed guts for her to come on the program but if you examine what she says - there is so much exaggeration and plain untruths it is mind blowing. The difference for me is that all politicians lean to exaggeration and lies but i guess when it comes to whether one party's position and past credentials on negative gearing or tax breaks some distortion is fairly innocuous - she headlines issues that need to be discussed but I believe need to be discussed with care. This is not being politically correct - it is acknowledging that religion and ethnicity is something that penetrates to the core of so many. Do you think the below statements are helpful. “I would say we’re in danger of being swamped by Muslims,” she said. “If you’re going to bury your head in the sand about it, you’re a fool.” (may 2016) 2.2% of Australia's population is Muslim ( old figures) and the fastest growing religion in Australia is Hinduism. It is the politics of fear. It is ugly and divisive. However that is not to say that these sensitive issues should not be respectfully and intelligently discussed - I just don't believe Pauline Hanson does this.

If you want to know how bad or good she is then you have to read - http://www.onenation.com.au/ I think she should be debated respectfully but she makes it difficult as she can't present a coherent thought. - Here is a snippet - the first two lines of her policy on Islam " Australia is a country built on Christian values. Our laws, way of life and customs enforced in the Australian Constitution were based on a secular society" Whilst this doesn't particularly offend me - WTF ? Seriously ?? So I will paraphrase "our country is based on religious values and therefore our country wasn't based on religious values". That's pretty straight forward. The whole document is full of distortion, untruths, bigotry, exaggerations and contradictions. But that is my opinion - you need to read it and make up your own mind. Your reference to Waleed suggests that you don't really read or listen to him either - Again a bit of research as to what he said about Pauline Hanson and Sonia Kruger is quite insightful. He actually agrees with you that they should be listened to but suggests that they then be debated respectfully. Lastly - "God help you if you don't agree with mass immigration or climate change, you will be called all the foul names and denigrated on the front pages of the Age and any ABC show that involves current affairs, politics or talk back" - Happy for you to present any foul names and denigration on the front pages of the Age and any ABC show. However to keep the balance I will return serve with Andrew Bolt, the Herald Sun and Alan Jones and other shock jocks.