Bill Shorten - how long?

[kfc1]

Albo? Good value but no. Personal life.

What do you mean here?

 

[Lebbo73]

Global Warming is responsible for an increase in bushfires! Most bushfires are deliberately lit ffs.

 

[Lester Burnham]

Shorten has cultivated the 'dull accountant' image when in opposition to Tony Abbott.

He didn't need to cultivate it. He has the personality of a house brick.

 

[apparentlydead]

Global Warming is responsible for an increase in bushfires! Most bushfires are deliberately lit ffs.

Proof?

Link?

Do you mean back burns which get out of control because most State, (insert name here of dept that handles parks/wildlife etc), departments are run by incompetent buffoons?

Or do you mean arson?

 

[apparentlydead]

He didn't need to cultivate it. He has the personality of a house brick.

You could be brothers then.

 

[Contra Mundum]

He didn't need to cultivate it. He has the personality of a house brick.

 

[Gough]

He didn't need to cultivate it. He has the personality of a house brick.

Which is pretty much the only difference between him, and Turnbull. Shorten has been talking, and releasing policy for the duration as time as leader, in contrast to Abbott, Turnbull is now doing the same, and doing it considerably better. .

 

[smokingjacket]

Global Warming is responsible for an increase in bushfires! Most bushfires are deliberately lit ffs.

What's hard to understand about it? Increase in temperature, decrease in rainfall. When something goes up the place is hotter, for longer with drier fuel loads.

 

[Maggie5]

I think that one of the election issues will be an increase in the GST.

The LNP seem to be in favour where to date Labor is opposing.

 

[Lebbo73]

Proof?

Link?

Do you mean back burns which get out of control because most State, (insert name here of dept that handles parks/wildlife etc), departments are run by incompetent buffoons?

Or do you mean arson?

Arson

 

[pazza]

Global Warming is responsible for an increase in bushfires! Most bushfires are deliberately lit ffs.

Oh please. As an ex-CFA member let me tell you that ain't the case.

Just a simple mix of oxygen, heat and fuel.

 

[Lebbo73]

Oh please. As an ex-CFA member let me tell you that ain't the case.

Just a simple mix of oxygen, heat and fuel.

Fair enough. I was wrong on this issue. I am sure they used to say ten years ago that most fires were deliberately lit. However, you can't blame global warming when temperatures aren't rising.

 

[pazza]

Fair enough. I was wrong on this issue. I am sure they used to say ten years ago that most fires were deliberately lit. However, you can't blame global warming when temperatures aren't rising.

You can.

It's not just temperature.

Look at Victoria as it now stands. October has been awfully dry. Melbourne has had hardly a drop of rain compared to even what the average is normally. Great for work and socialising, but, geez it's hurting the farmers! Even areas like Werribee are suffering more so than usual - the lack of water in Melton weir will impact the farmers/market gardeners down at Werribee South in terms of irrigation flow. We are going to get some seriously high priced potatoes soon.

This lack of rain will only result in a tinderbox of overly dry and cured fuel. Similar to that of 1982-83 - and we all know what happened in February 1983 don't we?

That was an El Nino of the worst kind. These events are becoming more regular which means we are going to keep suffering the aftermath of these events...including bushfires.

Another impact on bushfires and their intensity is apathetic attitude of city people moving to the country in growing numbers and not knowing how to handle the conditions, despite every education campaign since 1983. The lack of clean-up work in residential properties is a real worry. Follow that with the efforts of the Department of Scorched Earth (it has a proper name but, you get the point). Ask the people up Lancefield way what they think of them.

The number of arson based bushfires I honestly think is a lot lower than other causes..from electricity supply down.

 

[apparentlydead]

Arson

LOL.

Fair enough. I was wrong on this issue. I am sure they used to say ten years ago that most fires were deliberately lit. However, you can't blame global warming when temperatures aren't rising.

Massive LOL.

Apart from what pazza just schooled you in, please consider lightning strikes and the idiotic government departments that I mentioned.

I am all for controlled burning, but not when numpties are involved in the planning, timing and execution.

 

[Lebbo73]

LOL.



Massive LOL.

Apart from what pazza just schooled you in, please consider lightning strikes and the idiotic government departments that I mentioned.

I am all for controlled burning, but not when numpties are involved in the planning, timing and execution.

At least I admit when I am wrong. You have no ******* idea about most things, but keep digging!

 

[apparentlydead]

At least I admit when I am wrong. You have no ******* idea about most things, but keep digging!

I see...please post links to where I was wrong...not just in your sheltered opinion, but factually wrong...and I will happily apologise.

See, we could play this game, where I dig up the multitude of incredibly moronic things that you say, that have zero basis in fact, and make you apologise for them all.

And you could try and do the same to me.

I, and everyone else, knows who is going to win that one.

By the length of the Flemington straight.

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

The threshold of insult, humiliate and intimidate are reasonable but offend is simply too low. The subtle difference between insult and offend is a big difference, as one is an act and the other is how another feels. You shouldn't be guilty of an offence based on how others feel. Its like a kid who says "you made me angry" when they should be saying "I get angry when you did X".

But what if the qualifier was "Statement X offended me as an Aboriginal because points Y and Z were factually incorrect"? Offense, to my mind, CAN be taken into account, but only based on qualifiers as it was in the Bolt case.

 

[Lester Burnham]

But what if the qualifier was "Statement X offended me as an Aboriginal because points Y and Z were factually incorrect"? Offense, to my mind, CAN be taken into account, but only based on qualifiers as it was in the Bolt case.

I'm not sure why this is being discussed in a thread about Bill Shorten. There is at least one thread dedicated to the Bolt case. For example, I addressed your point here...

Not quite. The judge ruled that Bolt said things that were untrue, and the tone of his comments deemed that they were not an expression of a genuine belief. Hence Section 18d of the RDA did not apply, which says that - Section 18C does not render unlawful anything said or done reasonably and in good faith.

So Bolt was ruled to have broken the Racial Discrimination Act because of one judge's opinion of whether some factual errors he made were or were not made in good faith. It's a very flakey way of regulating free speech.

 

[medusala]

These things don't even affect you in pommy land ffs, so your faux outrage, whilst cute, is really null and void.

Yet Abbott speaking in England affects you. Another post, another logic fail.

I cant even be bothered working out which banned poster you are. Too many the same.

Who else?
Albo? Good value but no. Personal life.
Tanya? No. Gillard all over again with the shrill woman of the left. Labor would be wary because they've gone to extreme lengths to try and win back the 'bloke'.
Jason Clare? Probably not ready
Burke? No

I agree with you, Bill mightn't be travelling well now but who is better? Things go in cycles, sometimes charisma is in (Clinton, Blair) but then the dull, boring but safe (Howard, Bracks, Bush snr) is seen as better. Howard polled just as badly as Bill is now.

I think Bill would be easily better than Gillard,Rudd and Abbott as PM. I also think there is every chance that the shine will come off Turnbull very quickly and that Bill's polling will improve.

Interesting to watch anyway.

 

[medusala]

Don't make s**t up, don't run foul of the law. It's easy.

No Gough, that's not correct.

see 18D for exemptions. Where does truth come in to it as a defence?

 

[apparentlydead]

Yet Abbott speaking in England affects you. Another post, another logic fail.

I cant even be bothered working out which banned poster you are. Too many the same.

Yeah, great try.

However he is espousing this policy as something which ALL Australians embrace, and is quite obviously attempting to portray this as some sort of eternal legacy by which the conservative right will worship him over for eternity.

It's cringe worthy and pathetic.

btw...as usual you cherry pick posts to try and suit your needs.

Typical.

much lurve

bushie

 

[medusala]

btw...as usual you cherry pick posts to try and suit your needs.

Your posts barely worthy of quoting, let alone in full. You haven't improved at all under your new name.

 

[apparentlydead]

Your posts barely worthy of quoting, let alone in full. You haven't improved at all under your new name.

I know pet, I know.

And the ones which are too difficult for you are just completely ignored.

#growsumballs

 

[kfc1]

Bill really is the human Lorem Ipsum

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

He IS a placeholder! But for who? What text is eventually going to fill in for his bland filler paragraphs in ALP history?

As others have said, what a pity Greg Combet wasn't still around.