...and you sucking his tailpipe.

@SM:

Haven't had time to read the article yet, I see. Puerile name-calling doesn't get you off the hook - it just proves that your contributions here are nothing more than those of a malignant and ignorant shill who'll publish anything to try and discredit the Greens, with absolutely no regard for truth and honesty.

Obviously, you don't want people to know the truth. And you accuse Gillard of being a liar! You have a hide like a rhinoceros.

Shadow Minister it is not my intention to side with the greens against you.
Not too to infer sainthood on them, or to child like chant the rubbish religion has any part to play in their party.
I understand, you must be driven by fear at present.
Not that your contributions have not always had an element of nastiness and a seeming allergy to truth.
But your effort here is, well even you know how silly it is.
Your fear,driven by your party's sponsor standing on the brink of his own massive Watergate, doors closed no escape possible.
Is well founded, but just a tip, chanting mindlessly the same lines, unfounded tripe, we see daily in these conservative comic books is not going to help.
Take the advice offered by the greens leader here,look at read under stand greens policy's.
You do not need kiddy stuff, use their own words.

The greens are a joke, and I was poking fun at them. I notice the complete lack of calls for other posters to back off when they call TA names, but the strong defence of Brown and Juliar.

When I see the Green/Labor glee club being civil, I will too.

As for the carbon tax that will export jobs, raise prices, raise emissions by 5% by 2020 and blow a further $7-10bn hole in the budget, on top of hurting me personally in the pocket, I think it stinks.

Sorry about this Shadow Minister, at times I too have got down in the gutter.
Usually in my view as a counter to you and a couple more.
I openly share fears about the Greens, maybe for different reasons than you.
But you are acting,the Jillie stuff, and much others unlike someone who can use the English Language to describe his/her thoughts.
You know, you do , I think a better standard of Conservative though exists, to say the least than yours.
You should also know I remember the Murdock press once went on strike, not wanting, their words, to work in a propaganda factory.
At some time in the future, those looking back may be forgiven for thinking the slanderous standards of public debate/politics can be laid at those feet and the fact Tony Abbot, in my view a man of no substance, may only be a puppet, let us watch closely his party's printing press/Murdock in the coming months
I note the greens however will not answer questions but are quick to denigrate my thoughts.
In that future time of review they may not exist, a conservation party will, but the sugar coating icing on top of the green cake hides the true nature and possible impacts of such lost soles.

Morganzola the greens lust for power is what will inevitable drive them to determine the religious inclination of everyone… it happened in their past life as Bolsheviks and as they say -
Just as a Leopard does not change its spots,
So too, when you open a watermelon you find a Red inside

Ho Hum… you lost me after the first 10 words… you are too deranged to bother reading

If you want to get ahead with corporations….. I suggest you follow your superannuation payments and become one

Kipp I do like it when someone else quotes Thatcher

I voted for her and here’s the full quote
"I think we've been through a period where too many people have been given to understand that if they have a problem, it's the government's job to cope with it. 'I have a problem, I'll get a grant.' 'I'm homeless, the government must house me.' They're casting their problem on society. And you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also, to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

I suggest you focus on the following:

“There are individual men and women, and there are families.”

“No government can do anything except through people”

“It's our duty to look after ourselves”

“People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations. There's no such thing as entitlement, unless someone has first met an obligation."

Speaking personally:

I always support the individual over the state and

From the huge negative geared investment relief and historic tax write-offs I have available, which will create the tax refund coming

means I have certainly met my “obligations” to the state

I wonder if you have or are you just standing there, waiting for a welfare handout?