Home » Australian Politics » Rudd tries to use “poofter power” to save labor’s bacon

Rudd tries to use “poofter power” to save labor’s bacon

Imagine my surprise when my mate Kevin sent me this email overnight.

To: Iain Hall

Iain –

If I am re-elected Prime Minister, I will support marriage equality legislation in the first 100 days of Parliament.

At this evening’s debate, I made that commitment to the Australian people.

If you think it’s time for marriage equality, I’d like you to stand with me and show the country that we think it’s time:

It's Time for Marriage Equality

I’ve been thinking about the meaning of marriage for a long time – and I won’t hide the fact that this has been a journey for me. It is a difficult discussion, and I won’t force this on anyone. It will be a free vote for members of the Labor Party.

But here is what I know: we are at our best when we give all Australians the same dignity, the same opportunity for happiness.

I believe that no matter who we love, we all should be able to make that same promise I was able to make to Therese over 30 years ago. That all of us should be allowed to marry the one we love.

I am the first Prime Minister of this country going into an election promising to support marriage equality. So if you support equal marriage, I will need your support.

This is an issue that is very personal to people. What moves us to take a stand on this issue can move others too. If you think it’s time for marriage equality, share your story telling the country why.

http://www.itstimeformarriageequality.org/

It’s time.

Kevin

What it says to me is that there is no fringe issue that the New Again Dear Leader won’t try to exploit in his quest for re election. However if we give this brain fart even the most cursory inspection it will become obvious that it won’t save Rudd’s bacon because most of those who are hot to trot for gay marriage are Greens supporters or other minions of the left who would not vote for the coalition anyway. So the best that this could do is make a few votes that now only come to Labor as second preferences go directly to Labor which in real terms makes it a zero sum game, that is only if we can assume that those same progressives can get over their disgust for Labor’s PNG solution. Nah this whole grab for poofter power to save Rudd from political oblivion is bound to be as fecund as the gay couples that Rudd is seeking to exploit here. It may well come to pass that  as a society we decide to broaden the definition of marriage to include same sex pairings but  at present its invocations buy Rudd is just another example of the old bait and switch which Rudd hopes will shift the debate into the esoteric world of interpersonal domestic issues rather than the focus being upon Labor’s woeful record of mismanagement , overreach and wacky ideas that don’t work like the carbon tax.

Cheers Comrades

tumblr_mp1vmkzolL1ro9jc9o1_500

About these ads

84 Comments

  1. James says:

    What this says is that Rudd is no different to Gillard, he too is a cheat, if he had notes at the debate and a liar, Why.

    Just a week ago his position on the question of Gay Marriage was that if re-elected Labor would arrange a peoples referendum on the question, let the people decide. But now we’ve had a Julia Gillard moment from him and now he would just bring in legislation.

    There’s a big difference between a referendum and legislation!

    Bit like the Carbon Tax under a Government I lead and there’s still the question of that peoples forum on the carbon tax that was on and then went down the drain.

  2. Ray Dixon says:

    I don’t recall Rudd ever suggesting a referendum on gay marriage, James. To start with, it’s not a constitutional matter and, therefore, does not qualify as a referendum topic – ie an issue on which the people can decide. It’s always been a legislative issue and I don’t see any inconsistency in Rudd’s proposal to put it to Parliament as a conscience vote. So unless you can provide a link to your referendum claim, I’m calling YOU the liar here, James.

  3. James says:

    Oh Ray, you certainly do have Labor tunnel vision. It is good however that you don’t take in everything that your choosen one says

    How many links would you like me to throw in here 1, 2, 10 we’ll try this one first up; http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-28/kevin-rudd-gay-marriage-referendum-dismissed-by-advocates/4788796 ( 28th June 2013: Kevin Rudd’s gay marriage referendum offer dismissed by advocates)

  4. Ray Dixon says:

    James, this is what he said in the article you linked to:

    “Whoever wins the next election, please, let’s just have the civility to open this to a conscience vote for all,” Mr Rudd said.

    “I’ve indicated publicly where I will go on this, and if he doesn’t, then I think we then have to look at other mechanisms including the possibility of recourses to plebiscite or referendum.”

    I don’t know if you have strong comprehension skills or not, James, but the clear interpretation is that Rudd called for a conscience vote (in Parliament) first. He only suggested a plebiscite/referendum (ie a people’s vote) as an alternative if Abbott refused to allow the coalition a conscience vote on the legislation.

    In other words, his statement last night was entirely consistent with the above statements and your allegation that he is a “liar” is unfounded.

    I’ll withdraw my “liar” accusation against you though, and just put your mistake down to a lack of comprehension skills and an over-eagerness to slur Rudd over the slightest thing possible. ie – to your prejudice.

  5. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, I think that email of Rudd’s was only meant to be sent to homosexual voters. Maybe you should ask to be removed from the, um, ‘gay list’?

  6. James says:

    Last night he conventionally, as a vote grabber, omitted the referendum lines, he simply stated he would bring in legislation this time around, so is his policy statement now watered down? . It does have to be a constitutional matter because there are certain clauses pertaining to the constitution that could be effected.

    His advisors have obviously clued him up to the history of referendums, they are incredibly difficult to pass and often require bipartisan support.

    To clarify the meaning of “marriage” in the constitution a referendum would have to be called and he knows that at this stage in the campaigning it is highly unlikely that any bipartisan support will be forth coming so the whole deal is just electioneering puffery. His usual smoke screen policy style.

  7. Ray Dixon says:

    Oh for God’s sake, James, any person who knows anything about Australian law knows that marriage is not a “constitutional” issue and that it is a legislative law. Rudd did not “omit” anything and his undertaking to introduce legislation was entirely consistent with his previous statements.

  8. James says:

    Oh Ray dear Ray … The Marriage Act 1961 is an Act of the Parliament of Australia which governs legal marriage in Australia.

    Marriage is a concurrent power under section 51(xxi) of the Australian Constitution[1] and is currently under the purview of the Commonwealth Government. Prior to 1961, the states and territories administered marriage law.

    No wonder your Kevin Rudd has to use notes… LoL

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    James, don’t condescend. The Constitution only gives Parliament the power to legislate over marriage, it does not define marriage and it means that the Parliament is the only means by which the Marriage Act can be changed. No referendum would be of any consequence. You are cherry picking and misinterpreting both Rudd’s words and the Constitution. And quite deliberately so. Do you ever concede you might be wrong?

  10. Ray Dixon says:

    It (marriage) does have to be a constitutional matter because there are certain clauses pertaining to the constitution that could be effected.

    Which ones? When will you admit you’re wrong, James?

  11. James says:

    Section 51(xxi) of the Commonwealth Constitution provides that the Federal Parliament has power to make laws with respect to ‘Marriage’. That power is not further defined by the Constitution.

    Whether the ‘marriage power’ in the Constitution could support a Commonwealth law that recognises same-sex marriage is a complex and well debated subject. Leading academics suggest that should the Australian Parliament legislate to allow same-sex marriage there will undoubtedly be a constitutional challenge to its validity in the High Court.[32]

    It is settled law that the Commonwealth cannot define the constitutional meaning of marriage through legislation.[33] In Re F; Ex parte F,[34] Mason and Deane JJ held that:

  12. James says:

    Marriage, means the union of a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” under the constitution..

    Constitutionally, the Parliament is not like Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking Glass, who said, “When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.”

    It is not for the Commonwealth Parliament to widen its own powers by widening the definition of words in the Constitution. Otherwise, it could expand its powers indefinitely and the federation would be as nought.

  13. Ray Dixon says:

    Come on James, you’re getting well away from your original argument, here. Now you’re trying to claim the Constitution’s words “might” mean a legal challenge if Parliament passed a new law. Well, maybe that will happen but that is not what we’re talking about.

    To put you back on the rails, you said Rudd “lied” about this issue, when he did not. He merely confirmed what he had previously said, namely that he would take a bill to the Parliament on gay marriage FIRST.

  14. James says:

    If a High Court challenge was made and was successful the only way to overcome a High Court ruling that the Constitution requires “marriage” to be restricted to different-sex unions would be a referendum to change the Constitution making it clear that the word “marriage” means the union of any two people.

  15. Ray Dixon says:

    James, I’m not interested in debating the definition of marriage with you, or indeed the issue of should gays be allowed to marry. For what it’s worth, I’m not an advocate for changing the existing Act myself, and I think there should be a separate Act for same sexes instead of fiddling with the existing one.

    However, the point of this exchange (which you seem to have forgotten) is that Kevin Rudd did not “lie” or “omit” anything when he said in last night’s debate that he would introduce a bill for gay marriage within 100 days of being re-elected. The point is you were wrong. And the further point is you refuse to acknowledge that.

    Go on, why don’t you say, “Oh, I misunderstood”? It’s not hard and you’ll feel better for it.

  16. James says:

    Not at all, I am of the belief that Rudd, who has had some sign from somewhere to several months ago suddenly change his strict religious mind on the subject, only fed this out in the manner that he has for political expediency, a quick vote grabber that has not explained to the voting public, knowing full well, the complexities that such legislation would present. He has conveniently been advised to not refer to a possible referendum and costs to us the tax payers that would be mountainous and made it look as though after 100 days the to use Ian’s word Poofters word have free ride,. which is far from the case.

    I have misunderstood nothing.

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    Firstly, he didn’t “feed it out for expediency” – he was asked the question by the independent panel, so he responded.

    Secondly, he did not and has not said he will hold a referendum on gay marriage. He only ever floated the idea of a referendum (or more correctly, a plebiscite, as the issue cannot be decided by a public vote) as a possiblity and, even then, only if Abbott refused to allow the coalition a conscience vote. In other words, it wasn’t a serious policy position and never was.

    You are clutching at straws, James, but I guess that’s what those using strawman arguments do.

    Wouldn’t it better to at least concede you’ve overstated your complaint about Rudd in this case ? Really, you’re looking silly here. Go on, it won’t hurt and we’ll all think better of you.

  18. James says:

    Ray dear me, as soon as he’d finished reading his notes about his Gay Marriage legislation, special web sites and social media sites were switched on under the Labor banner. I hope you took the time to view them, Ian supplied links to them. And of course their were the specific e-mails at the head of this item.

    It’s just same old Rudd. Same old Labor, with a twist, they have 457 visa Yanks working on their slick electronic media. Bit of a pity really, that Australians aren’t considered up to the task, isn’t it.

    Nothing can ever be overstated about KRudd and Labor, and I feel proud that I and others on this site are free to highlight the problem that is Labor.

    In fact I feel better every day knowing that I don’t have to be paid thousands of Union members dollars to get my message out on the electronic media.

  19. Ray Dixon says:

    Let’s face it, James, you’re just completely one-sided on politics and your views on Kevin Rudd are hardly balanced. In fact your rhetoric and hardline one-party mantra actually suggests you hold extreme right-wing views and would favour a dictatorship over democracy. I’m just glad the rest of Australia (or most of it) is a bit more open-minded.

  20. James says:

    Once again Ray you’ve got it all wrong. I have a balanced view of Kevin Rudd, I think his glasses are great, in fact I’m up for new glasses shortly and will be seeing if I can get some that are similar, but without the rose coloured lenses.

    I couldn’t stand to live under a dictatorship again, not after having lived through two no make that three (Rudd – Gillard – Rudd) over the past several years.

  21. Ray Dixon says:

    Says it all, James.

  22. Richard Ryan says:

    Our next USA consul will be gay—–now suck it up ye poofter bashers!

  23. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    The point of the post is not to “bash” or even criticise homosexuals but to point out that Rudd is trying to co opt this issue for his own nefarious purposes rather than his position having any principle its just the old “promise any thing to get elected” tactic in full swing.

  24. James says:

    No Ray, this says it all….

  25. GD says:

    Well done, James :)

  26. GD says:

    Let’s face it, James, you’re just completely one-sided on politics and your views on Kevin Rudd are hardly balanced. In fact your rhetoric and hardline one-party mantra actually suggests you hold extreme right-wing views and would favour a dictatorship over democracy.

    Oh, puh-lease Ray, if there is anyone more ‘one-sided’ on politics and Kevin Rudd it is you!

    You have been Kevin’s greatest supporter, so much so that he did get the top spot! Well done Ray!

    However since gaining the top spot Kevni has been soiling his schoolboy pants, he’s shown he is a spoilt brat when it comes to debating, cheat sheets and all that.

    Now that your favoured Labor Party is showing itself to be the dysfunctional rabble that it is, you attack conservative thinkers as favouring a ‘dictatorship over democracy’.

    You used this against me and now you’re trawling it out again because James has called you on a few points.

    You also reckoned:

    I’m just glad the rest of Australia (or most of it) is a bit more open-minded.

    No Ray, the rest of Australia are not bloody-minded, dyed in the wool, rusted on Labor supporters.

    Read the polls and weep.

  27. Ray Dixon says:

    GD, the bald truth is that James was “called out” over his misleading allegations on Rudd’s gay marriage stance. But I should have known you’d come along and pat him on the back as though he’d actually made a point. You extremists like to stick together.

    Btw, I’m certainly not one-sided and I won’t even be voting Labor. Although I do think they’re slightly better than the Coalition and that Rudd deserves a 2nd term after his first was cut short. I’m quite clearly the most balanced and fair commenter on this blog, whereas you use terms like Rudd has “soiled his schoolboy pants”, which really shows how pathetically biased (not to mention childish) you are.

  28. Tony says:

    Sheesh Ray, have you fallen and hit your head ?

    That goes against everything you have written in the entire time I have been here.
    Talk about a pole reversal.

    Wassup ? Trying to walk back your statements the last couple of months about labor winning ?
    Looks like you’re trying to save a bit of face here.
    Not buying it, sorry, not that you care.

  29. James says:

    Give him a break, looks like he might have finally seen the light, I just home he hasn’t gone all green though!!!!!

  30. Ray Dixon says:

    Tony, I have NEVER said that Labor will win this election.

    I have only ever said that bringing Rudd back would give them a better chance and at least save them from oblivion. And I think that’s certainly the case.

    Unless you can go back and find where I said that Rudd would win then PLEASE NOTE:

    Do not attribute views or words to me that I did not express.

    (PS: I’ll be voting for Cathy McGowan, an Independent. Don’t forget, I live in Indi, Sophie Mirabella’s seat and she’s even despised by Liberal voters here. I have no idea who McGowan would support in the event of a hung Parliament but she seems to be genuinely acting for the electorate, unlike Sophie.)

  31. Iain Hall says:

    I very much doubt that the result will be another hung parliament Ray, and I suspect that all fringe candidates will do less well than they did at the last election even in Indi, further I can;t help thinking if your well known feelings about Sophie might just have in influence on what peopel tell you about their view of her as a candidate.

  32. James says:

    NO!!!! Ray, look what independents did to us during the last Parliament, please go back to Labor, no Greens no Independents or we are all doomed again!

  33. Ray Dixon says:

    My opinion on Sophie Mirabella is an opinion, Iain, not “feelings”. I have no feelings for her whatsoever and I base my opinion on her appalling record, her self-serving manouveres and her failure to deliver any worthwhile programs or projects to the Indi electorate in her entire 12 years as our MHR.

    Those opinions are shared by many others (a majority, I’d suggest) and she only hangs on here because there are so many rusted-on conservatives that they’d even vote for Ivan Milat if he were the Liberal representative.

    And those opinions of Mirabella are shared not only in Indi, Iain, but right across Australia. By any measure, she is an appalling politician and an unworthy parliamentarian. She brings shame to her electorate and to our country. You’d be well rid of her.

    As for McGowan, she is certainly not a “fringe independent” and has conducted a very high profile and strong campaign. So much so, that all other independents (and even Katter’s candidate) have pulled out of the race. Make no mistake, she will outpoll Labor and go bloody close to toppling Mirabella. And that can only be a good thing.

  34. Ray Dixon says:

    James, I agree with Iain – we are not likely to have a hung Parliament so there is no real danger in voting Independent only to find they get into bed with one side or the other.

    In any case, I don’t think Cathy McGowan is that interested in national issues and is more intent on bringing value, jobs, growth & services to a most important area of this State and country that has been long overlooked and taken for granted.

    Btw, I don’t think you can reasonably say that the Independents are responsible for Abbott losing the last election. I’d suggest the fact he only got 72 seats out of 150 is more likely the reason for that. That and his arrogant expectation that there should have been another election. He didn’t accept the people’s vote.

  35. Tony says:

    Not only did you, but also with your inferences as well.
    It is fortunate for your argument, that you can no longer access older posts to prove it.
    Nice try though.

  36. Ray Dixon says:

    Rubbish, Tony. Prior to Rudd being reinstated (just a few weeks ago) I was saying loud & clear that Labor under Gillard would be wiped out, and I had been saying that for 2 years. Then, when Rudd was reinstated, I said it’s “possible” he could win. At all times though, I emphasised that it was unlikely and that Labor had an uphill battle.

    It’s also rubbish that you can’t scroll older posts to find those comments. Try it – click on any month over the past two years in Iain’s archives and read it yourself.

    Furthermore, I’m sure that Iain will confirm that my position has been as described above.

    Now I repeat:

    Until and unless you can back up your claim that I somehow said (or even inferred) the ALP would win this election, kindly refrain from putting your false accusations in my mouth.

  37. Ray Dixon says:

    And here’s one for you, “Tony”, seing you can’t or won’t back up your false assertion. This comment I made on 5th June (about the same time you started commenting here as “Tony”) is totally consistent with what I’m saying now and what I’ve said for years – that Labor can’t or won’t win this election:

    http://iainhall.wordpress.com/2013/06/05/no-one-gives-a-gonski-about-anything-gillard-says/#comment-82440

    It’s not too late, Iain. Think about it – she’s going to lose big time and be out of the job as PM within 100 days and then the ALP will be forced to replace her. Even if she holds her seat of Lalor (and the way it’s looking don’t be surprised if she doesn’t) and doesn’t resign as leader post-election, how long do you think she’ll last? So they might as well do it now and just hope to salvage a few more seats. I agree they will still lose and need a massive rebuild but it’d be easier to rebuild from a base of say 50 seats than 25, don’t you think? Let’s face it, we NEED an opposition, not a rump. Seriously, if Gillard stays on the ALP is in danger of being extinguished as a political party. She has done so much damage that the rebuild needs to start now.

    I even bolded the relevant parts for you. And there are 100s more such comments like that one if you care to look them up (it’s not hard). Now you go and find just one – just one – that is to the contrary. Or retract.

  38. Tony says:

    Before you burst something, how do I access the same search facilities you can ?
    Otherwise your blowing it out your a*se ! ;)

  39. James says:

    You might also whilst explaining how you go back to these things explain how you get quotes to show up in that fashion and just how to make certain words bold, please?

  40. James says:

    I got the smiles thing, but its how you quote something, eg; try this james, so that it comes up like others here have made quotes, eg, italic or whatever, or with a bold highlight. All I can find at wordpress is for admins. I have a word press account that opens when I’m on here, but can’t find any settings.

  41. Tony says:

    have you got an email a/c, will help you out, or send me an email at tcapalos@gmail.com

  42. GD says:

    if you care to look them up (it’s not hard)

    Ray, seeing as you are now finding time to trawl through the archives, perhaps you could look up all those times you reckoned I said I hated aborigines. After all, as you say, it’s not that hard.

  43. Richard Ryan says:

    One for Ray! Do you reckon Tony Abbott’s daughters have sex appeal?

  44. Tony says:

    What am I allowed, 2 links ?
    Bloody thing would be in moderation for years.

    Isn’t it funny, how all of a sudden, all the died in the wool labor freaks, have now all scattered, dishevelled, and gone underground ?
    Isn’t it also funny, how, now all of a sudden, Ray Dixon, one of labor’s greatest defenders and stalwarts, has magically been reborn, seen the light, and has now done bait and switch ?

    Nice try Ray, but fail again.

    Your criticisms of the libs is long standing, and well known.
    To reply to your demand (sic) :lol:

    Death by inference, and a thousand cuts

    Finally folks ? The sealer ? The identity challenge. Oh dear, I win again. :(

    BTW, the budget figures were released to the party’s last night.
    Wonder if either side, will have the guts to release the details to the hip pocket weary voter ?

  45. Ray Dixon says:

    Tony, go to Iain’s home page. Scroll down. In the right-hand column you’ll find a heading “Previously at Iain Hall”. Hit the little arrow and pick a month. There you will find all the posts of that month with all the comments. I picked June because that was about the time “Tony” started commenting here, and because you said I’d “switched” my position in that time.

    As you can clearly see from the example I gave you, I have always maintained that Labor were unlikely to win. I may be a strong critic of the Liberals (for good reason) and I may believe Rudd is better than Abbott, but I’m also realistic enough to know that with 72 seats already, plus Slipper’s seat, plus Katter’s support plus the seats presently held by Windsor & Oakeshott, the coalition is effectively starting with a majority of 76 seats out of 150.

    I haven’t “changed camps” or anything of the sort and I would still prefer it if the ALP somehow won this election. I’m just saying (and have always said) it’s unlikely to do so. You are making a mountain out of a molehill here and losing it a bit old chum.

    GD, I could do that if I wanted to but I couldn’t be bothered. Your dislike of aborigines & muslims is legendary and requires no argument to sustain.

    James, you need to learn some basic html code. Putting stuff in quotes is simple, it’s blockquote within the brackets thus < followed by /blockquote in the closing brackets. Likewise bold quote is either b or strong in the brackets. It's simple stuff – "Commenting for dumbies" would cover it.

  46. Ray Dixon says:

    Do you reckon Tony Abbott’s daughters have sex appeal?

    No, Richard, but obviously Tony does. Maybe that’s why he keeps wheeling them out as backdrops in his press interviews … or is that just a ‘Dad moment’?

  47. James says:

    A big thankyou to Tony for supplying me with ‘Ray Dixon’s Book’, HTHL code. The notes on the inside front cover I found fascinating; “I wrote this guide from my personal experiences hope you find it useful signed RD.

    Anything Rudd says about TB’s sex appeal remarks is just jealousy. I mean have a look at Labor’s line up Macklin, yea loads of sex appeal; Pong guys you’ll make great head way with her, and the list goes on. You have to feel for KR, he would have loved to have been in a position to highlight some Labor babes, but the cupboard is bare.

  48. Ray Dixon says:

    That’s a pretty rank comment, James.

    Firstly, you asked for my help on html code so I gave it to you. Yet you respond with sarcasm? Thanks.

    Secondly, your remarks re Abbott’s ‘sex appeal’ gaffe are smut and the stuff of a kid going through puberty. Grow up man.

  49. James says:

    Now just calm down there Ray, I know the election is getting closer everyday and you’re starting to get very tense, that’s understandable., but the fact of the matter is I was after help from who ever could give it and Tony came to my rescue last night. I also thankyou you earlier for having confirmed the methods required as supplied by Tony.

    Well if you feel that Macklin, Pong, Albasneaxie and the rest of the Labor crew have sex appeal, that’s your prerogative. Next you’ll be telling use that Christine Milne is some sort of Sex Goddess, a refugee from a Miss World contest or something, just lighten up a bit, we are all allowed 30secs of frivolity at least once in a lifetime.

  50. Ray Dixon says:

    I’m hardly “tense”, James, and I hardly need to “calm down”. Your condescending manner is pathetic though, and you’d make a better debater if you could somehow cut out that nonsense (and your extreme political prejudice).

    As I’ve said before, I don’t really care who wins the election and in fact I am voting for an Independent in this electorate (as will many Liberal supporters too).

    As for your last paragraph, again … just grow up.

  51. Ray Dixon says:

    This will obviously get you drooling, James, going by your previous sexist remarks.

    That’s Abbott’s daughter Megan in the skin tight mini skirt – so I guess he really does think ‘sex appeal’ is what it’s all about.

    Can’t help wondering why he’s got a 12-yo boy standing next to him though – oh, wait a minute, that’s Wyatt, the kid MP.

    This picture just begs a caption:
    .

  52. James says:

    Yes she really should have been wearing, well maybe an overcoat to protect herself and the rest of the world from her womanly charms. Really Ray.

    12 year old boy … Ray back to the books for you and study up on people before you pass such ridiculously childish comments.

    CAPTION. Yes I’m Megan, and I’m here in Queensland to help, and yes I’m stand taller than the two blokes next to me.

  53. Tony says:

    Firstly, you asked for my help on html code so I gave it to you. Yet you respond with sarcasm? Thanks.

    Just when did you do that Ray ?
    That’s why I put up my email address to point James to the site.
    Agan, caught out making things up as you go.

  54. Ray Dixon says:

    “Tony”, scroll up to see where James asked me to tell him how to include quotes and bold in comments:

    You might also whilst explaining how you go back to these things explain how you get quotes to show up in that fashion and just how to make certain words bold, please?

    You really are a nitpicker. And, as usual, ….. wrong.

  55. Richard Ryan says:

    12 year old boy? maybe an ‘altar boy’

  56. Tony says:

    As usual you are wrong you mean Ray.
    Nice attempt though, grant you that.
    You came up FOUR HOURS after I put up my response, with a one line tag.
    Want to get back to the thread now, or do you want to continue this pointless gnit pickng when you lose ? :lol:

  57. Ray Dixon says:

    James, I’m not suggesting she shouldn’t flaunt it in the tight mini-skirt, I’m suggesting that Tony using her ‘sex appeal’ to win votes is a blatant ploy and shows his sexism. Sorry, but there’s clearly no other reason for Megan to be paraded around like that. Name one. What can she possibly contribute except to serve as some hot eye candy? It’s real retrograde stuff by Abbott – roll out the sexy looking chicks to impress the voters. Wow – let’s go back to the future.

    As for a caption:

    Abbott: And I brought Megan along today because young Wyatt here is a bit randy. Poor boy, he’s going through puberty, you know?

  58. Ray Dixon says:

    Tony, I repeat, James asked me a question so I answered it. I’m not trying to detract from you or your help – I have merely stated a fact. Now kindly butt out.

  59. Richard Ryan says:

    He had his beer goggles on says Mark Latham—-snigger snigger.

  60. James says:

    Mark Latham, the best that could be said of him is that he is a boil on the backside that is Labor.

  61. Ray Dixon says:

    The Latham boil was lanced nearly 10 years ago and he’s never gotten over it. I don’t think anyone takes him seriously.

  62. Richard Ryan says:

    Still there though, and the media love Mark Latham.

  63. GD says:

    Ray snivelled:

    I’m not suggesting she shouldn’t flaunt it in the tight mini-skirt, I’m suggesting that Tony using her ‘sex appeal’ to win votes is a blatant ploy and shows his sexism. Sorry, but there’s clearly no other reason for Megan to be paraded around like that. Name one.

    Megan Abbott is dressed as other young women of her age dress. She is showing support for her father’s campaign.

    Tony Abbott is proud of his daughter. He is also across the fashion styles of young women and doesn’t see his daughter’s dress choice as offensive. He is proud of her support for him. Wyatt is also proud to show support. They both recognise that the young woman is attractive.

    Unfortunately, Ray, you are snivelling around trying to find a reason to hate this pic and hate anything that the Libs do.

    So much for your statement a while back that you are the most balanced or partisan commenter on the Sandpit.

  64. Richard Ryan says:

    GD NEXT, will be telling us that Abbott’s girls are virgins–giggle giggle, do cats drink milk?, do ducks swim?. Me thinks she is a prick-teaser. Shalom.

  65. Richard Ryan says:

    GD must have his “beer goggles” on if he thinks this breeder of Abbott’s is attractive, yuk-yuk-yuk! not my type sweetie.

  66. Richard Ryan says:

    BUT-BUT she has her Dad’s eyes, and probably his sex-drive also, hope we don’t see her doing the rounds of the media looking for her lost “love child” as her Dad was doing some years ago, now that was real TV drama——days of our lives stuff.

  67. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    I have seen pictures of your spouse so I would not be so judgemental about the appearance of Megan Abbott if I were you.

  68. Richard Ryan says:

    Iain, speak for yourself , your spouse has a face like a bag of spanners, and can talk the teeth off a saw.

  69. Iain Hall says:

    The point is that you are the one judging Megan Abbott harshly and i am calling you on your pettiness, which I am rather sure you would not repeat to your spouse who would doubtless be far from pleased that you should treat ANY woman that way.
    In other words judge not lest ye be judged.

  70. Ray Dixon says:

    you are snivelling around trying to find a reason to hate this pic and hate anything that the Libs do

    GD:

    1. I don’t “snivell around”.
    2. I don’t “hate” the pic and I clearly endorsed Megan flaunting her bod in the tight skirt that even reveals her undies. She’s welcome around here anytime, wearing that.

    My point was simply that Abbott is using a young woman’s sex appeal to win votes … and I think that’s poor form.

    If you’d like to debate in an adult fashion I’m happy to engage you further. But if you’re just going to continue to attack the person with insults like “snivelling” and not the opinion you can, you know, you can f off, mate.

  71. Ray Dixon says:

    Richard, regardless of her resemblance to Dad in her facial features, you gotta agree you’d bag that bod in a flash, mate.

  72. Richard Ryan says:

    Ray, if she asked me nicely, maybe.,

  73. Ray Dixon says:

    Nicely? Maybe? Mate, if she asked you any way at all (or even demanded), the answer is a no-brainer.

  74. James says:

    Agree with you Ian, very un-healthy and in mature remarks about a young woman who obviously enjoys supporting her father.

  75. Iain Hall says:

    I have a teen aged daughter James and the last thing I have any patience for is those who treat young women the way Richard does.

  76. Iain Hall says:

    Phillip Coorey Chief political correspondent

    Labor’s shock decision to recruit Peter Beattie as its candidate for the federal Queensland electorate of Forde appears to have backfired spectacularly, with the Coalition on track to win the seat in a landslide.

    Forde is one of eight marginal seats polled by JWS Research, the results of which will be published exclusively in Saturday’s AFR Weekend.

    The poll of four Labor marginal seats and four Coalition marginal seats around the country was conducted using the names of the respective major party candidates in each seat, ensuring maximum accuracy.

    The poll shows that in Forde, in south-east Queensland, the incumbent Liberal-National Party Member Bert van Manen is thrashing the former Queensland premier on a two-party preferred basis by 60 per cent to 40 per cent.

    This 10-percentage point lead represents a two-party swing of 8.4 per cent to the Coalition in Forde since the 2010 election.

    Mr van Manen is beating Mr Beattie on the primary vote by 54 per cent to 33 per cent, while the Greens are on 4 per cent and 9 per cent are undecided.

  77. James says:

    Even taking the undecided vote and with what would be a big big ask were to throw the whole lot of the 9% at Beattie, he’d still loose.

    As I said elsewhere, the Rudd experiment is yet another Labor failure of Gillard proportions. I won’t be surprised even if Rudd wins his seat, he pulls up stakes after the election and is shown the door out of the Labor front bench washroom.

  78. Ray Dixon says:

    Iain, it was an automated phone poll of just 568 voters in Forde. For all they know, the robot could have been speaking to 15-yo Jaxen from Boganville who just happened to answer the phone. No credibility can be given to such a small sample, the minimum usually acceptable sample being 1,000.

    That said, I doubt Beattie will win the seat, but 60-40 sounds far fetched.

  79. GD says:

    Peter Beattie’s taking it seriously, whether or not it’s a Ray Dixon approved poll.

  80. Raymond Conder says:

    Don’t underestimate poofter power. There is plenty of it. ABC for example is full of it plus of course rest of the media. Notice how their eyes light up whenever a poofter story gets aired on the TV.

  81. Raymond Conder says:

    Post election can we say that gay poofter marriage promotion by Labor turned supporters away from that party?

  82. Tad Vinda (B.Bus) says:

    yes it is something I would expect from labor, trying to sneak a few undeserved votes by catering to filthy dung punching sodomites. fags are a lot like a.l.p. politicians and their supporters, fond of telling other people why they are wrong while not doing much them selves.

  83. Iain Hall says:

    Raymond
    while the idea of Gay marriage plays well to many of a “progressive” demographic it does not appeal at all to the religious and that includes the ever increasing Muslim demographic in places like western Sydney which is one reason that both Labor and Liberal are less than Keen on changing the status quo. For both of them its a nett vote loser over all.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 259 other followers

%d bloggers like this: