Abbott Leadership challenge - "Et tu, Turnbull?" - 14/9/15

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Fact check comment 1 is a flaw straight out. GP is not the only type of doctor people visit per year on the taxpayers. Good to see the ABC though looks at it one way through rose coloured glasses though.

2. The debt figure has been repeated over and over again as blowing out to or would have become $667 bill by numerous coalition politicians but again fail to acknowledge this. Why weren't we seeing scrutiny in the same way over the greens giving us the spiel on 97% of scientists and climate change which is the exact same use of a statistic. What's even funnier foremost is how they try to tell people the government shouldn't use estimates because it doesn't necessarily paint an accurate position in their opinion. Yet in point 3 they do the exact same thing . Hypocrisy much.

Generally, if you are going to suggest fact-checkers have got it wrong, you should follow their lead and supply links and justification for your reasons. The GP tax as it has been called refers to GPs, yet you think this fact-check wrong because people visit more than just GPs. Do you see the flaw in your rebuttal?

And an estimate for 12 months from now, based on existing prices is not that big a stretch. It could well be a bit wrong, but the point is that the Liberals are estimating it as being A LOT different to what the existing price is, so their's is far less reliable.

And I don't know what you mean by "The debt figure has been repeated over and over again as blowing out to or would have become $667 bill by numerous coalition politicians but again fail to acknowledge this". Did you mean to write something other than "coalition"? Because that's the reason it actually won the 'Golden Zombie'. The Coalition keep repeating it, despite it being very dodgy to claim that is even "Labor's debt", let along that it would've reached that, let alone the fact Labor went to the polls will savings to get the budget back towards a surplus.

 

[mottrain]

You agree that coalition pollies repeatedly claim the debt figure as blowing out to $667 B. That is the fact-check claim that has been proven to be horse piss. How much more acknowledgement do you want?

No it doesn't because all they have done is rubbished the claim on the estimate without demonstrating the coalition is wrong to make such a statement and that figure wouldn't be correct in 10 years time through inaction.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

No it doesn't because all they have done is rubbished the claim on the estimate without demonstrating the coalition is wrong to make such a statement and that figure wouldn't be correct in 10 years time through inaction.

Did you click the links? There were two of them in that bullet point, so you may have missed the 2nd justifying link.

 

[mottrain]

Generally, if you are going to suggest fact-checkers have got it wrong, you should follow their lead and supply links and justification for your reasons. The GP tax as it has been called refers to GPs, yet you think this fact-check wrong because people visit more than just GPs. Do you see the flaw in your rebuttal?

And an estimate for 12 months from now, based on existing prices is not that big a stretch. It could well be a bit wrong, but the point is that the Liberals are estimating it as being A LOT different to what the existing price is, so their's is far less reliable.

And I don't know what you mean by "The debt figure has been repeated over and over again as blowing out to or would have become $667 bill by numerous coalition politicians but again fail to acknowledge this". Did you mean to write something other than "coalition"? Because that's the reason it actually won the 'Golden Zombie'. The Coalition keep repeating it, despite it being very dodgy to claim that is even "Labor's debt", let along that it would've reached that, let alone the fact Labor went to the polls will savings to get the budget back towards a surplus.

The guy said visit the doctor and not visit the GP. It was also again referred to being a GP copayment under the previous statement yet applied as everyone saw to far more than that. Therefore there is no flaw in my rebuttal other than it has been dumped a GP tax as a title of convenience.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The guy said visit the doctor and not visit the GP. It was also again referred to being a GP copayment under the previous statement yet applied as everyone saw to far more than that. Therefore there is no flaw in my rebuttal other than it has been dumped a GP tax as a title of convenience.

Are you suggesting the GP copayment applied to more than just GPs? Tony Shepherd and other referred to those 11 visits in the context of introducing the GP copayment.

 

[awaremind]

To be honest , lately even Turnbull has been a bit wormish, sticking to the party lines he clearly doesn't believe in fully but not seeming sure that he even cares about what he believes in anymore.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

To be honest , lately even Turnbull has been a bit wormish, sticking to the party lines he clearly doesn't believe in fully but not seeming sure that he even cares about what he believes in anymore.

I agree. I think his team feel that this loyalty will be rewarded. Disloyalty was the biggest problem for Labor, and he didn't want to repeat that. And if Abbott continues attacking his own colleagues Turnbull's tactic may prove right. But I am projecting a bit since Turnbull has also made sure people know he doesn't fully believe in some things (like the 'Real Solutions' pamphlet before the last election).

 

[pokerspiv]

With a change like that and the promotion of some of the women and 'rising stars' like Josh Frydenberg, would you vote for the Liberals in the next election?

Will certainly never vote for Labor as long as they maintain their opposition to live exports and farming practices in general. As long as they are in bed with the vegan fascists they are simply not an option for anyone who makes a living from primary industry. Not to mention how much more expensive food in general will become if the vegan fascists got their way and made free range/grass fed/organic farming compulsory, which they certainly would like to do.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Will certainly never vote for Labor as long as they maintain their opposition to live exports and farming practices in general. As long as they are in bed with the vegan fascists they are simply not an option for anyone who makes a living from primary industry. Not to mention how much more expensive food in general will become if the vegan fascists got their way and made free range/grass fed/organic farming compulsory, which they certainly would like to do.

Do you have any evidence for this fantasy?

 

[pokerspiv]

Do you have any evidence for this fantasy?

You mean besides the fact that the Labor Party banned live exports last time they were in power, based on nothing but the report of a tabloid current affairs show?

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

You mean besides the fact that the Labor Party banned live exports last time they were in power, based on nothing but the report of a tabloid current affairs show?

That's all you've got???

And you use that to say that Labor and "vegan fascists" are going to oppose "farming practices in general" and ban food? Que?

And good luck getting people to believe Four Corners is "tabloid". You've used that phrasing before, but unfortunately people trust the ABC more than you.

 

[pokerspiv]

That's all you've got???

No, I have an list as long as my arm of practices that Labor's coalition partners would love to see outlawed. Including, but not limited to:

Genetic modification
Mulesing
Battery hens
Feedlots
Live Export
Horse racing
Greyhound racing
Factory farming of any kind
Keeping sheep indoors
Fishing
Kangaroo shooting
Rodeos
Animal medical testing
Keeping pet birds in cages

They are literally insane and a danger to the Australian way of life. And as was shown in the last Labor government, they are now official coalition partners of The Greens, so we can only assume that their policies are also labor policies when it suits Labor.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

No, I have an list as long as my arm of practices that Labor's coalition partners would love to see outlawed. Including, but not limited to:

...They are literally insane and a danger to the Australian way of life.

Labor doesn't have a coalition, so I guess you are admitting that Labor does not have "opposition to live exports and farming practices in general" and that your suggestion you wouldn't vote for them wasn't inspired by what you've just listed.

The cattle industry was self-regulating and failed that self-regulation. You may dislike it but most people thought that was a problem. Most people also thought Julia Gillard's response was over-the-top, and that feeling became more widespread when it took a long time for it to start back up and when Indonesia responded by getting their imports from elsewhere.

So quit with your over-the-top rhetoric (don't use "literally" unless you mean literally) and scare tactics.

Why did you want to hijack the thread with such guff?

 

[pokerspiv]

Labor doesn't have a coalition?

The Greens were in a formal coalition with Labor in the last Labor government. And they will be again in the next.

It was the Labor agriculture minister who banned live exports, how can you possibly claim they are not opposed? Do you even read the shite you type?

 

[pokerspiv]

The cattle industry was self-regulating and failed that self-regulation. You may dislike it but most people thought that was a problem.

What evidence do you have that "most people" thought it was a problem? In case you've forgotten, the government that implemented the ban was voted out in one of the biggest landslides in history.

 

[pokerspiv]

So quit with your over-the-top rhetoric (don't use "literally" unless you mean literally) and scare tactics.

Why did you want to hijack the thread with such guff?

How is it a thread hijack? You asked why anyone could vote liberal. The answer is, because Labor are worse. And the banning of live export, which cost thousands of Australian jobs and permanently damaged an important export market and relations with Indonesia is a prime example of why the current Labor party is not fit to govern.

 

[pokerspiv]

L
So quit with your over-the-top rhetoric (don't use "literally" unless you mean literally) and scare tactics.

The Greens are literally insane. Lee Rhiannon is a communist. Scott Ludlam wants to ban Australia's biggest industry. Sarah Hanson Young thought a Lisa McCune drama was a documentary about the actual Australian navy.

These people are functionally *ed and literally insane. Anyone who votes for them has no idea what they are doing.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Pro tip: If people haven't replied to you and you find something else you want to reply to, just edit the original post. Or else, once you've gone in twice on the same thread, maybe take the time to read the full post and see if there's something else you want to reply to.

Now. The Greens Labor 'coalition' didn't last the full term last time. There was also a 'coalition' with the Independents, so your ideas of them being buddy-buddy are false and most likely politically motivated. The Greens are also not insane, functionally or literally. No-one with a full-time job is. Obviously. So you're misusing words, presumably because you're politically motivated to do so.

How is it a thread hijack? You asked why anyone could vote liberal.

No, I didn't. If I did, feel free to quote me here.

I believe (as the title of the thread suggests) I asked would you vote for the Liberals if they had Bishop as Leader, and Turnbull and Robb as Treasurer and Assistant Treasurer (Cormann could take that position too). I don't know where you got the idea I asked anything else.

What evidence do you have that "most people" thought it was a problem? In case you've forgotten, the government that implemented the ban was voted out in one of the biggest landslides in history.

Do you think that it isn't a problem for an industry that is self-regulating to fail to uphold its own standards? It was anecdotal, based on my memory of the time. The cattle industry had failed their own standards. And as per my memory I remember a couple of other things that may have caused Labor to be ousted. Carbon Tax, Asylum Seekers, Disunity would've been my top 3. Or simply the repetitive slogans and lack of interrogation of Tony Abbott if you want to talk about it tactically.

 

[sherb]

You mean besides the fact that the Labor Party banned live exports last time they were in power, based on nothing but the report of a tabloid current affairs show?

That description of Four Corners is one of the most patently and blindingly absurd things I have ever read on this forum.

And that is saying something.

 

[jasonwilde]

The Liberals are literally insane. Tony Abbott is a fascist who was going to 'Shirtfront' that commie Russian. Pyne wants to screw around with education. Joe Hockey thought that poor Australians don't drive.

These people are functionally ******ed and literally insane. Anyone who votes for them has no idea what they are doing.

EFA.

Perspective bro.

 

[imadodgyumpire]

Bishop is the same ****, but different smell. Turnbull? Meh, he's nothing special.

The way it's appearing, the current government is a new low for the Liberal Party. They will need a major overhaul in the next couple of decades.

 

[pokerspiv]

Do you think that it isn't a problem for an industry that is self-regulating to fail to uphold its own standards?

The story in question had nothing to do with the Australian beef industry. It was cruelty to animals committed by Indonesians in an Indonesian abattoir. Holding the Australian beef industry responsible for the actions of people in foreign countries is completely ridiculous.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

The story in question had nothing to do with the Australian beef industry. It was cruelty to animals committed by Indonesians in an Indonesian abattoir. Holding the Australian beef industry responsible for the actions of people in foreign countries is completely ridiculous.

Take it up with the Australian beef industry. They are their regulations.

Believe it or not, but good farmers actually care about their stock. They don't value political spin over professionalism, the health of their industry and animal welfare. The ban went too far, but you clearly have no clue about this story.

And this story has nothing to do with the topic. Hence: attempted thread hijack.

 

[mottrain]

Take it up with the Australian beef industry. They are their regulations.

Believe it or not, but good farmers actually care about their stock. They don't value political spin over professionalism, the health of their industry and animal welfare. The ban went too far, but you clearly have no clue about this story.

And this story has nothing to do with the topic. Hence: attempted thread hijack.

You got an answer to the question you had asked and didn't like the answer that the poster gave and now you want to try and tell him it is offtopic because you don't like it . As for the industry health comment, many of them care about this I agree and thus why they criticised the decision of the government to ban the operation. pokerspiv is relevant.

 

[louismaxwell]

Take it up with the Australian beef industry. They are their regulations.

Believe it or not, but good farmers actually care about their stock. They don't value political spin over professionalism, the health of their industry and animal welfare. The ban went too far, but you clearly have no clue about this story.

And this story has nothing to do with the topic. Hence: attempted thread hijack.

You are talking nonsense , you are putting the political spin in on this. The cattle farmers were up in arms about the Govermnet of Gillards for putting the ban in place. As to farmers caring about their stock, they always have and always wills. But dont try and spin your way out this so the Gillard government doesnt look so bad. Your bias is reeking all over this, take heed.