Dear Shadow Minister,

As Alan Austin pointed out to you on his article
thread (and corrected your misinformation) - you
really should stop reading The Australian - and
resorting to insulting the country's Prime Ministers.
Twisting their names - a low
mental capacity, and loses you the argument.

My eldest explained to me last night, why so many feminists are so anti Abbott.

She tells me that a lot of her old Uni mates, fully indoctrinated hard left, actually fancy him.

These ladies are horrified, & hate to admit, even to themselves, that they find him attractive. They realise they are supposed to prefer the pudgy KRuddy, & hate their body for having a mind of it's own.

Realising they should not hate their own body, they try to transfer the hate to Abbott.

The resultant conflict between their indoctrination & their hormones makes them very confused, & gives them migraines.

So fellers, be kind to our misguided lefty feminists, you don't understand the inner turmoil they are suffering.

Got to give it to that daughter, she's a bright kid, chip off the old block of course.

"These ladies are horrified, & hate to admit, even to themselves, that they find him attractive....."

Thanks for the comedy relief, Hasbeen.

Abbott's like an unattractive version of Maxwell Smart.

Dear Poirot,

Who wouldn't be attracted to the -
"loudmouth, wall-slapping bigot at Uni.
The homophobe, blinkered Vatican warrior, the
rugger-bugger, white Australian and junkard dog
of Parliament," that David Marr describes so well
in his, "Political Animal: The Making of Tony Abbott."

Perhaps only his wife and daughters?

Nobody else I know comes to mind.
But then the women I know require more from a man
than just the "mirror" test. (To see if he's breathing).

Lexi,

Who would be attracted to a pudgy, foul mouthed, woman abusing, wife beating leader of the labor party?

With respect to Alan Austin, who clearly has no economic background what so ever, that his purpose is to post misinformation by cherry picking information and presenting them out of context.

As for reading the Australian, the SMH, the age, the Canberra times, etc, I find them informative, factually accurate, and presenting a broad range of interpreting the information. I find The New Matilda, and Independent Australia, seldom present anything new, only ethically dubious polemics with cherry picked facts and misrepresentations, designed to appeal to intellectually challenged persons that only want to hear one side of any issue.

Dear SM,

Thanks for giving me the best joke of the
afternoon. You - talking about intellectually
challenged individuals who only want to hear
their point of view. And as for cherry-picking -
you've got that down to a fine-art - as has the
leader of the Party you support.

I always suspected that you may have a sense of
humour - even though you may not realise it.