Hello ... 'Shadow', are you there?

For the sake of balance, this is Annabel Crabb today ... the journo you claim is biased towards Labor:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-25/crabb-talk-carbon-to-me/2809258

No 'Shadow', you're the one who is biased and therefore, unbelievable.

Can anyone be surprised that public confusion and disenchantment over this issue is at such high levels?

Bonmot,

Given that new threads require approval, there is a distinct time gap between posting and others seeing it. In this case, my thread was submitted much earlier this morning, long before your challenge.

As far as bait and switch, I did actually answer your challenge by providing my reasons why AC was technically incorrect.

With regards AC's recent article and the wide publicity it is receiving, there is no news here. Given the horrendous nature of this revelation to Gillard's credibility, trying to compare her to Abbott is essentially trying to excuse her conduct, especially as she has tried to define herself as being always pro carbon price.

Will the real Julia stand up. We have not seen her yet. So far all we have is the product of the spin doctors.

Ah yes!, the proof is in the pudding, one lives in hope that when Mr. Abbott goes ballooning, the fresh air will remind him of all the "tihs" he has come out with since the last Fed.election.
At least he is honest in 'fessing up about his lack of knowledge', I will give him half a point for that at least.
NSB

@ 'Shadow'

"Given that new threads require approval, there is a distinct time gap between posting and others seeing it. In this case, my thread was submitted much earlier this morning, long before your challenge."

Interesting, I submitted this thread on Saturday, 23 July 2011 9:23:52 AM - as shown.

However, it did not appear in the general discussion items until Ludwig's comment - over 24 hours later.

But hey, so what - back to topic.

You still don't get it, do you?

>> trying to compare her to Abbott is essentially trying to excuse her conduct <<

No 'Shadow' - my thread (or Crabb's article) was about Abbott.

It's was about Abbott's conduct - pure and simple.

All you appear to be doing now is to wiggle and waggle, change the goal posts, bait and switch.

Fine, do that on your threads - please don't do it here.

Thanks for contributing to my first anyway.

Bizarre concept but what's wrong with just telling the Australian public the truth?

@Houellebecq: I honestly don't understand the confusion and outrage about Mr Rabbit. ... Why is it so hard to understand?

He is using the sort of language I last saw in those "World Wrestling" shows a few years ago, when my kids were young enough to find the show worth watching. It doesn't make sense on a logical level, yet it does communicate.

What I hear from Tony is a Mario Milano esque pitch from a man in his budgie snugglers on how everything Labor does is bad, how the Liberals are going to save us by demolishing the NBN, rolling back the carbon tax, killing the mining tax, giving tax cuts to everyone and raise pensions, all while being fiscally responsible.

Yes Houellebecq I appreciate the sole purpose of those promises is to convey the message that Tony represents our side and will prevail over Labor, who by implication is the other side. The message is the emotion, the promises the vehicle that expresses the emotion and nothing more. They are certainly not the policy he will follow if elected.

The problem is I don't hear the message. It is spoken in language I lost interest in decades ago. Without the message all I and the others scratching their heads here get is a stream of contradictory promises. To someone expecting to be addressed as an adult by a fellow 50+ reputably intelligent man, it is very disconcerting.

Even more distressing to someone who doesn't hear the message is how 1/2 the country is can be sucked in by what is left in its absence - a stream of drivel. I find myself talking the same dim view of it as I did to my son's enthusiasm for those "wrestling" shows. But I can understand it, because I shared that enthusiasm once.

@Houellebecq: A week is a long time in politics. How long is 2 years?

My thoughts exactly. If Julia can't win against this she shouldn't be in politics. So why do I feel that if Tony can't win against Julia, he should not be in politics?