Paul,

This should help with your literacy problem:

few

determiner, pronoun, & adjective

a small number of.

You said I often I often posted from the Telegraph, I then said I posted references from the Telegraph a few times a year, and finally you then attack me with "SM, are you saying you don't post stuff from 'The Daily Telegraph'?"

Which leads to the illiteracy conclusion. I would offer to use small words, but it seems you have a problem even with them.

To write for the telegraph, you would need to use big words and have more than the tenuous grip on reality that the greens suffer from.

SM, your attempt at ridicule through scorn is noted. However that does not negate the inescapable fact that you constantly dredge the cesspool of journalistic excrement, in search of published political fecal matter in the form of Daily Telegraph diatribes to support your somewhat callow line of argument.
Do you arrive at your local newsagent before the crack of dawn each day in eager anticipation of getting your hand on today's copy of the latest Murdoch tabloided gutter sheet, 'The Daily telegraph'? The "no news newspaper" that features both the latest, and of equal importance, in the eyes of a Telegraph reader, Blockheads footy injury, and will he pack down in the Wombats scrum this weekend, and the ignominious machinations of anyone and everyone who's beliefs are to the left of that good gentleman Rupert (I don't control my newspapers) Murdoch, including the Labor Party and The Greens. As unbiasedly "reported", with uncle Rupts permission, by the likes of the pimply faced teenage "political reporter" Gemma Jones or do you just go straight to the Piers Akerman column to read another diatribe on Labor. Gemma and Piers sure know what side their breads buttered! Which one is it SM?

Paul,

Once again you show a logic deficit. You again claim that I frequently get my material from the daily telegraph, yet in spite of what I suspect is desperate trawling through my posts have only been able to find one reference.

I don't normally purchase any hard copy papers and typically read the Australian and the SMH (Both sides) with doses of the New york times and the BBC.

I guess that the vitriol directed at the main stream media is mostly due to the terror the greens feel at the harsh light of reality, and that the two main media houses regularly expose the greens for the pillocks that they are.

Sorry to come in late, but as for a connection between labor and the unions, even the standing member for Rudds seat was introduced by Shorten as a one time fine union boss.

They (labor) will never get that monkey off their back, and perhaps they have no intention of doing so, because perhaps it's only their supporters who want them to, not them themselves.

We also must remember that most of the turmoil in business being witnessed today has only really festered under the fair work act. Another union/labor body.

My late father was a unionist through and through and while I accept that THEY DID do a great job in protecting workers rights, they have simply gone too far and I think that deep down even they know that but pride won't allow them to loosen up.

I don't recall any of this happening during the second to fourth term of the Howard government, which incidentally was when the country was booming.

It's time for the unions to decide to either pull back, or bury the very industries they perceive to protect.

SM, no desperate trawling required through your posts, I went straight to it. I recalled you had indeed recently started a new discussion with a quote from, you gussed it, your favorite source of political comment 'The Daily Telegraph'. were you quoting the wisdom of Piers Akerman or was it the pimply faced Gemma Jones? No matter, its all the thoughts of Chairman Rupts, anyway!

Paul,

You still don't get it!

You said I often referred to the telegraph, yet have only one example. You were wrong, just suck it up.

It must also hurt especially when the article so clearly exposes the air head nature of the greens.