Speaking of being rich, famous and having "lucky genes", what's the difference between listening to Cate and listening to Gina Rinehart?

I guess one of them worked hard at being rich and the other worked really hard at not being poor.

Why not butt out Gina?

oh and:
"I was all for a carbon tax, but now, since Cate is involved, I would do anything to stop it"
Yeah sure.

I will tell you where I think the hypocrisy lies.

There were two Australian stars who fronted this ad. Besides Cate there was Michael Caton, but we hear no slur against his name from this lot. Why not?

"Well that Caton bloke starred in the Castle didn't he so he must be all right. Not stuck up like that rich bitch. He is as ocker as you and me mate. Won't hear a bad word said about him. Her on the other hand, bloody hell, her father was a Yank sailor on R&R after all, and what's with 'Cate' any way? Should be Kate for crying out loud! Reckon she must spend most of her time OS. She should stay there. Plus she is a bird. Tell her to nick off!" 

Hypocritical bunch aren't we.

Well someone was going to start a thread on this topic. Never thought it would be a Houlley wind-up though.

I'm more worried about tax-funded Ads than who is in it. Is there some irony in the fact that we vote in a government based on their policies (or the fact they are not as bad as the other lot), then they spend more of our money to convince us to support policies which they promised they would not introduce.

Are we all going mad?

Bugsy makes a good point about Gina Rinehardt," what sort of carbon footprint does she make" ?, " how much money is she prepared to spend upon servicing her point of view" ?.

Isn't Kate and Caton's view, simply an attempt for the other side of the argument to be heard ?, and a welcome relief from the the media barrage that portrays the view of the big end of town.

Let the debate begin I would say Houelle.

Cate can surely have her say on carbon taxes or any other subject, whether she is a rich, talented and beautiful actress or not, can't she?

Michael Caton is also a (probably less)rich actor, but we don't hear the same hoo-ha against his contribution to the ad do we?

Why is that do you think Houellebecq?

Is it perhaps the 'tall poppy syndrome' that is alive and well in this country?

It always seems to be a gender issue with Houellebecq though, no matter what the subject.

I am not a fan of a carbon tax, but I defend Cate's right to say she is a fan.

With quotes like this I'm off to the punch...

'I’m confused as to *when* we get to say yes.

Did we get asked a question? Was there a vote? Will there *be* a vote? '

'Read “just say yes” as “just shut up.”

That’s pretty much the thrust of it.'

Hahaha.

Suze,

Who mentioned gender?

'Is it perhaps the 'tall poppy syndrome' that is alive and well in this country?'

That and everything csteele mentioned.

'what's with 'Cate' any way?'
I second that! Stuck up theatre luvvie's not going to tell me what to do. I'd have the same reaction if it was that Huge jack-man. I think you're obsessed with gender suze, I give all prejudices a more even go and class warfare and antiauthoratarianism and an aversion to goody two shoes types are miles ahead in this case.

'Reckon she must spend most of her time OS. She should stay there.'
Yes!

PS: 'rich, talented and beautiful actress or not'
1 out of 3.

pelican,

Gold star. I am impressed as well that you remain consistent. You didn't even mention the Rodent's similar antics. I cant believe those here pining for American celebrity politics.

PS: This is not funded by the government, just Cate supporting the Arts funders. Knows what side her bread is buttered on.