OTB,

".....it takes a certain amount of inanity (dumbness) to employ the controversial phrase of the moment......" in order to provoke the Prime Minister.

If you don't mind, I can't be bothered backtracking through your stuff in order to "identify words that support my opinion."

Abbott was revisiting the phrase in an attempt to be oh-so-clever - and it was puerile rubbish.

It's blatantly clear that you judging csteele's and my opinions as being "prejudicial" is a case of pot/kettle.

The king-hitting, OTB, was all Jones'...followed lamely by mediocre...middling...muddling Abbott attempting to squeeze a little more mileage out of it.

Lame.....

Poirot,

There is no pot v kettle.

There NO evidence only prejudicial mind reading. Mind reading and thought control that is reminiscent of the Gillard/Greens Government's racial vilification laws.

As stated, there evidence supports the entire opposite of what you would assert, that it was Gillard who exploited her father's bereavement.

Of course you want to sweep the evidence under the mat. But see the actual words and quote here:

onthebeach, Thursday, 21 February 2013 5:44:24 PM
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5635&page=8

There is no doubt whatsoever. It is there in black and white that Abbott referred generally to government as he has done in the past. Gillard introduced her father and shamelessly used his death to sledge Abbott.

My third para should read:

"As stated, there evidence supports the entire opposite of what you would assert and in fact it was Gillard who exploited her father's bereavement."

I think I'd give Gillard the benefit of the doubt regarding her initial response to Abbott on that just as I give Abbott the benefit of the doubt regarding his choice of words. The PM was probably quite raw regarding those words and is of a mindset to assume the worst of Abbottnso she quite possibly did think it was a deliberate play on Jones comments. I could easily be wrong about both of them but I'vegot no way of telling.

I think it does real harm to constantly assume bad motives to those on the other side (and good to our own). I' ve got plenty of rason to believe that both the PM and opposition leader are ruthless egotists desperate for power, that neither has a very high regard for truth or fair play. I'm also aware thats the nature of the filters that our system puts on what it takes to get to their roles. From what I've seen both also have some interest in what they see as the wellbeing of the county, the pragmatic point of contention comes in how well their visions as demonstrated by their actions coincide with my preferences.

I generally prefer Abbott to Gillard not because I think he is a better person that Gillard but because I think he is less dangerous to my freedom and future than Gillar has shown herself to be. Others have formed a different opinion, that does not make them evil.

R0bert

Julia Gillard did not recant her remark.

onthebeach, that thought occurred to me but I'm willing to assume that part of the mind set of assuming the worst of your opponent than a deliberate initial intent to play on the death of her own father.

I don't think that there is enough evidence to suggest that either deliberately used that exchange to play on Gillards fathers death to score a point against the other. At most evidence of how a passion on both sides to assume the worst of the other side in all circumstances.

A toxic trend that blinds us the the really dirty players on both sides.

R0bert