cont'd ...

Please excuse my typo in my sentence referring to
politicians who are not charlatans, demagogues and idealogues.
We should listen to them. Not to the siren calls of the
other.

Nathan,

While I was sitting on the toilet, and before I read your response to me, I thought that I should not a have commented on your politics, but merely refuted your comments on Pauline Hanson.

Therefore, I apologise.

However, I do refute that Hanson, for whom I have no particular feelings, has ever indulged in vile speech as have both the subjects of your post. You might not care for what she says, but that does not make her utterances “vile”. Unless, of course, you have instances I am unaware of.

And, Nathan, I do not see what the Green’s leader’s opinion of One Nation has to do with anything.

Hi Nathan,

Two hours after my last post. When do you think you will have examples of the "vile" lanuguage used by Pauline Hanson?

<<Vile comments have also been put towards Pauline Hanson.>>

I did not put for example: "Vile comments have "been used" by Pauline Hanson."

Lots of vile comments have "been put" towards Pauline Hanson by other politicians and the general public, including the Greens leader in the Senate, Richard Di Natale.

Yet this is the same party, the Greens, that are making a huge issue out the comments supposedly made by David Leyonhjelm, with Sarah Hanson-Young looking at taking legal action on the issue. Now that's a double standard on this whole issue isn't it?

I don't know how clearer I have to explain the situation - maybe I'll have to consider using some "expletive" language to get my point across.

SHY and her opponent are air wasters both have got down in to the gutter here and in the past SHY in my view is not asset to her party

Dear Belly,

Not sure that you'd call Leyonhjelm any sort of an asset
either. An ass would be more appropriate.