@one under god: yes try yesterdays press club hard/press her saying the media publishes[supports?]..crap

Here is what she actually said:
"If I can put it to you as clearly as I can, I’d say don’t write crap. It can’t be that hard,"

Which turns out to be an excellent example of what I mean. She attacked the issue, not the profession.

@Shadow Minister: The nasty lying shrew is getting her come upance.

Awesome Shadow! I didn't think anybody here would illustrate my point so eloquently.

@Shadow Minster: If Juliar had a modicum of substance, it would not be so easy for Abbott to shred her.

Sadly I tend to agree. She's a lousy politician. But this is about what Abbott is doing, not her. Abbott having poor competition is no excuse for his dragging the standard of debate in this country to the standard you set above.

@TurnRightTurnLeft: As I asked, would you mind actually engaging my points?

I doubt there are any good answers, so Shadow will ignore it.

Abbott also must know there is no answer to the picture you paint. The man isn't stupid. He knows he can't pay out billions to industry to reduce carbon, provide everyone tax cuts, eliminate new revenue streams Labor has created and keep the budget in surplus.

Yet he says it anyway. Abbott is lying. We know he is lying. He knows he is lying. Everyone knows he is lying. Yet despite this example Shadow voraciously attacks Julia as a lying shrew when at worst she went back on a promise when circumstances beyond her control changed. Methinks he doth protest too much. But I digress.

We've been unfortunate enough to see what happens to a country when lead by a politician who thinks it is perfectly OK to lie to both himself and his country to justify going down a path. The same politician claimed cutting taxes to the rich (while as it turned out he increased expenditure) would create so much wealth everyone would be better off and the good times would roll. http://rationalrevolution.net/war/bush_tax.htm Bush unleashed such an epidemic of bulldust ("liar loans" were an accepted vernacular for pete's sake) and economic misery that China has now been reduced to pleading with the US not to default on its loans.

Yet I gather from the polls that Abbott has managed to convince over 1/2 the voters that selling lies is a good way to run a debate, and presumably a good way to run the country. It is impossible to know what promise Abbott would break if he got into power of course, but given his promises at the last election left the country in a $9 billion dollar hole, it's looking he has lifted his campaign tactics right out of Bush's playbook.

Any why not Shadow, eh? As you tirelessly point out he is wining. Just like Bush did - for two terms.

In support of rstuart, and the subject. I also note SM, that your comment of nasty lying shrew displays an unfortunate gender discomfort, as well as colourful adjectives.

On the personal side SM, I have often wondered whether you are male or female ?, I have leaned toward a male, but because of the unnecessary porn adjective (nasty) you have used on this occasion, I have concluded that you may well be female. (ha). And a jealous one at that.

Besides that the talking down of all endeavours Australian, (by the Abbott led opposition) is a counter-productive thing by it's own hand. Paul Keating explained the subject best on Lateline last night.

http://www.abc.net.au/lateline/.

rstuart'
Regarding Gillard, you said 'Here is what she actually said:
"If I can put it to you as clearly as I can, I’d say don’t write crap. It can’t be that hard,"

Like not calling CO2 'pollution'

Thinker

*I have leaned toward a male, but because *...

I think your first thoughts were more on the mark.

So yep its somebody very pro liberal and if you think hard enough about it you will know who fits that description - think

You are looking for a person with a peculiar personality who is no stranger to upsetting people and enjoys it imop

Kerryanne,

Pot calling the kettle black. Note I use the term Nasty directly after you did. It was an exercise to see who attracted the criticism. Surprise surprise, not one comment against Kerryanne. Other terms are Rabbit, shill etc, and not one criticism from the glee club.

PS, I never even heard of "nasty" as a porn reference. Thinker2 it is now obvious where you get your reading matter.

As for my identity, I have been accused of being Julie Bishop, Joe Hockey and many others. For those that have read my earlier posts, I have spelled it out clearly, but I am dying to see who the neophytes think of next.

Rstuart,

I agree that "We've been unfortunate enough to see what happens to a country when lead by a politician who thinks it is perfectly OK to lie to both herself and her country to justify going down a path."