Q&A 2022

Remove this Banner Ad

Log in to remove this ad.

Wrong year thread I know, but how's the form of Jim Molan - "I'm not relying on evidence!"

Boy oh boy wowee
Prototypical anti science death cultist.

5i6Gwz7.jpg


 
*s sake is mccormack REALLY the best the nats can throw up ??


* Looks at the rest of the nats *


yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh , the bush really is ****ed hey.
 
fu**s sake is mccormack REALLY the best the nats can throw up ??


* Looks at the rest of the nats *


yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeesh , the bush really is f’ed hey.
Its more about Coal companies and getting the Libs in power than farmers
 
MacDonald is very poor compared to Tony Jones.
Be interested to hear a bit more about this.

The couple of episodes I have watched in the McDonald era, I have enjoyed a lot more than I used to. It has felt more like a facilitated discussion and less like an exercise in political pointscoring. More experts, less politicians, less loaded questions, less Tweets. They have however been ‘special episodes’ on the coronavirus and the economy so maybe that is the difference.

McDonald has seemed fine though. Tony Jones always rubbed me up the wrong way a bit. Too big a personality and ego for my liking.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Be interested to hear a bit more about this.

The couple of episodes I have watched in the McDonald era, I have enjoyed a lot more than I used to. It has felt more like a facilitated discussion and less like an exercise in political pointscoring. More experts, less politicians, less loaded questions, less Tweets. They have however been ‘special episodes’ on the coronavirus and the economy so maybe that is the difference.

McDonald has seemed fine though. Tony Jones always rubbed me up the wrong way a bit. Too big a personality and ego for my liking.
McDonald is fine - so far he seems to recognize that it’s not about him.

The way to avoid the political point scoring is to have fewer politicians on the panel. Take this episode:


Having Canavan and Fitzgibbon there is a waste of time. Steggall too. It’s ensuring that there will be conflict and no progress or interesting discussion.
 
McDonald is fine - so far he seems to recognize that it’s not about him.

The way to avoid the political point scoring is to have fewer politicians on the panel. Take this episode:


Having Canavan and Fitzgibbon there is a waste of time. Steggall too. It’s ensuring that there will be conflict and no progress or interesting discussion.
Canavan and Fitzgibbon are both batting on the same team their only points of difference are on the edges while Steggall comes across as the rational one until we get to her edges.
 
So many issues to cover, yet the good ol' ABC gets excited about the BLM being dissed.

McCormack was underwhelming but the media is just talking BLM. McCormack blundered but it was a master deflection by him.

Even a lot us us left leaning are a bit meh about BLM. after it was a thing in the US they 'discovered' some black lives here to be offended by.
 
Be interested to hear a bit more about this.

The couple of episodes I have watched in the McDonald era, I have enjoyed a lot more than I used to. It has felt more like a facilitated discussion and less like an exercise in political pointscoring. More experts, less politicians, less loaded questions, less Tweets. They have however been ‘special episodes’ on the coronavirus and the economy so maybe that is the difference.

McDonald has seemed fine though. Tony Jones always rubbed me up the wrong way a bit. Too big a personality and ego for my liking.
Yeah, very hard to argue with what you've said. Tony Jones was more "old school" went hard at politicians and "experts" so I know where you're coming from. The young fella on there now has a more evn demeanour but still manages to extract information. I hope that if Q&A gets a bit more boisterous so to speak nearing election time that plitical forces don't do a hatchet job on it because it becomes just to uncomfortable. We need this type of thing I reckon.
 
Be interested to hear a bit more about this.

The couple of episodes I have watched in the McDonald era, I have enjoyed a lot more than I used to. It has felt more like a facilitated discussion and less like an exercise in political pointscoring. More experts, less politicians, less loaded questions, less Tweets. They have however been ‘special episodes’ on the coronavirus and the economy so maybe that is the difference.

McDonald has seemed fine though. Tony Jones always rubbed me up the wrong way a bit. Too big a personality and ego for my liking.
Jones to me seemed more balanced and also better at challenging people. I haven't actually watched it in months, not because of McDonald just forgotten about it a bit for a while. It's always been a very hit and miss show, just something that you record and for every crap or ordinary episode there will also be one well worth watching.
 
Why are right wing spokesmen so unpersonable? Who votes for such people ‘more edges than broken glass’ we used to say.

They didn't get to where they are through talent or hard work. Their ninja-skills are confined to backstabbing and repaying favours to people that helped them backstab.
 

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top