csteele

for your benefit I care little if Poirot or others who are willing to continually defend a hypocritcal PM calls me a bigot. They diguise their bigotry well but is evident to anyone following OLO. It would matter to me if it was the many fine woman I know. Take what you want from that.

In the above post, runner does EXACTLY what he accuses another person of doing. Oh the irony.

Last night, I re thought my concerns re this thread.
I do not want Gillard as PM.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/pm-vouched-for-union-body-caught-in-corruption-scandal-20121012-27i7z.html
Above is the evidence of that, it wasto be reborn, intent to remove her the week her Father died.
It will not go away.
BUT please can we draw a line under her troubles, ignore the purely silly bigotry of runner, or other problems he may have with rational thought.
Should ANY WOMAN be spoken about like this? is Australia an ugly country.
Here in these pages we put views about women,and other country,s in print the world may read.
Every pub in this country would consider throwing some of us out, for the words Abbott uses every day.
Are we honestly saying Alan Johns can say as he did?
Then why would it be offensive for me to talk about his sexual orientation?
Can woman be insulted this very low way but not gays?
It will not lessen my man hood to say women are not slaves in our country not targets for bitter hateful old men.
Surely ATA After Tony Abbott Turnbull will show we need not get in the gutter to win in politics.

Belly, not trying to pick on you but I think the point is relevant.
"Should ANY WOMAN be spoken about like this?"

Why's the concern just with how women are spoken about?

Much of the outrage seems to be sexist and paternalistic in nature.
There are those who work towards a general clean up in the way public debate is done but there seem to be others who are happy to see men called all sorts of things but get bent out of shape when similar is done to women.

Other than sexism there is no basis for that attitude.

R0bert

This article says it all:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/pms-speech-goes-from-bad-ass-to-bad/story-fn59niix-1226494771520

As the viewers look beyond the headline and into the purpose of the speech being to defend one of the worst cases of sexism on record, the rampant hypocrisy of Juliar is becoming apparent to all.

"On Thursday, John Chalmers, group communications manager at Buzz-Numbers, warned that while the Australian public had largely lauded the Prime Minister's attack, on Twitter, Facebook and other sites, "our analysis suggests support for Gillard may change as the public connects Gillard's contradictory stance".

As the tone of the commentary changed, Jezebel started a debate on double standards."

Poirot, this from your link:

"A 2007 Harris poll found that 71 percent of Americans believed that the continued burning of fossil fuels would cause the climate to change. By 2009 the figure had dropped to 51 percent. In June 2011 the number of Americans who agreed was down to 44 percent—well under half the population<<

The Global Warming lobby lost me when the lies regarding their "climate change models" came out....they fudged the figures by stealth, not mistake.

That Carbon has become the new boogie man and the whole theme of their rhetoric moved from "global warming" to "climate change" seems like straw clutching to me.

When Rachel Carson wrote "Silent Spring" she targeted the chemical and petro chemical industries. Today the environmentalists target the consumer....much to the joy of the afore mentioned petro chemical segment and the financiers who own the segment.