Australian Federal political polls

[Sceptic-PK]

I've always been confused on how to politically categorise a support of free trade or globalisation.

They're both economically liberal, which would be more right than left but I was mostly alluding to Dick's quaint "Buy Australian" campaign.

Dick also shelled out the hard-earned for Bob Brown's legal problems, and I hardly think Dick's concerns regarding infrastructure and the environment re overpopulation could be classified as particularly right-wing. But people like amb and Alfie see things in such binary terms and do like to throw the labels about.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

That's because it's not possible. The Liberals supported the so-called leftist philosophy of protectionism, where Labor broke down the tariff walls.

True, but Keating was quite right-wing from an economics perspective.

 

[lionking]

True, but Keating was quite right-wing from an economics perspective.

Yeah, that's right. demonstrating the futility of the binary classification.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

They're both economically liberal, which would be more right than left but I was mostly alluding to Dick's quaint "Buy Australian" campaign.

Dick also shelled out the hard-earned for Bob Brown's legal problems, and I hardly think Dick's concerns regarding infrastructure and the environment re overpopulation could be classified as particularly right-wing. But people like amb and Alfie see things in such binary terms and do like to throw the labels about.

Hang on, I've made no comments about Dick Smith. The guy seems something of a hypocrite enigma when it comes to politics and causes.

eg. He is right wing enough to be one of the 1%.
He supports green causes, yet flies around in one of his many aircraft emitting more than his share of CO2 while calling on us all to save the world.

btw I only have one binary view: Gillard is the worst PM ever.


Now back on topic please.

 

[Legend]

I don't know what is left to discuss. Do fill us in.

There's still plenty of time for her to recover from these polls and Abbott is about as unattractive an alternative as the Liberals could possibly hope to promote. He does have a higher disapproval rating and lower approval rating than our WORST PM EVARRRRRRRR!, so it is hardly anything to be excited about, really.

Now, excuse me for this...

Liberal thoughts.

That doesn't help.

That's because it's not possible. The Liberals supported the so-called leftist philosophy of protectionism, where Labor broke down the tariff walls.

Right, and I've always received mixed messages from both liberals and conservatives regarding the issue. I highlighted this when someone recently asked me whether I "supported" globalisation and "what are some arguments for the other side?" Once I tried to classify it one way or the other I got a bit stuck.

They're both economically liberal, which would be more right than left but I was mostly alluding to Dick's quaint "Buy Australian" campaign.

Sure, I was just making an aside there.

 

[amb]

So, are we in agreement then that this Labor government is the worst ever? Even Whitlam makes these incompetents look like it was a good government.

 

[lionking]

So, are we in agreement then that this Labor government is the worst ever? Even Whitlam makes these incompetents look like it was a good government.

"We"?????

 

[philkensebben]

"We"?????

If you keep repeating the same claim over and over again, with no evidence, eventually people will be convinced.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

I don't know what is left to discuss. Do fill us in.

There's still plenty of time for her to recover from these polls and Abbott is about as unattractive an alternative as the Liberals could possibly hope to promote. He does have a higher disapproval rating and lower approval rating than our WORST PM EVARRRRRRRR!, so it is hardly anything to be excited about, really.

That would depend on which poll you are looking at this week. But how bad must she be if she doesn't have a lead as preferred PM - they are basically level? Not to mention the appalling 2PP results.

"We"?????

Yep, "we".

And as for evidence - why does one require one? People are still allowed to hold an opinion aren't they? This is after all a very subjective thing.

 

[amb]

Hear hear!!

 

[Legend]

And as for evidence - why does one require one? People are still allowed to hold an opinion aren't they? This is after all a very subjective thing.

Sure. You can also have empty opinions that are totally flimsy and disposable, compared to reasonable and substantive opinions. If you stand there frowning and adding no reasons for your petulant ravings, it comes off as the latter.

The respectable course of action is to at least try adding depth to your extraordinary stances, rather than just spout it constantly without regard for the fact that people will see through reactionary hyperbole here.

Please, divulge your reasons, perpetuate the conversation. We're seriously interested.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

Sure. You can also have empty opinions that are totally flimsy and disposable, compared to reasonable and substantive opinions.

What makes your opinions so "substantive" exactly?

What is most objectional to one, is quite acceptable to another.
For me and many others it starts with the greatest act of bastardisation perpetrated on the Australian public. From there it cascades with a plethora of mistakes and appalling misjudgements that have actually harmed Australians and their interests (not to mention deaths of asylum seekers).

Perhaps you could convince otherwise, I doubt it. Because in my opinion and based on the information at my disposal right now, she is the worst Prime Minister we have ever had.

 

[MG1962]

What makes your opinions so "substantive" exactly?

Perhaps you could convince me she is not the worst PM ever. I doubt it. Because in my opinion, she is.

Well given this is the third thread on this topic one might suggest obsesive opinions dont carry all that much weight

 

[Legend]

What makes your opinions so "substantive" exactly?

How can you so deftly miss the point completely?

I don't have any "WORST PM EVER!" opinions. Saying she's an average PM is naturally a moderate opinion, not that I have even argued that. You're the one going ballistic with shallow claims and it's up to you to make them substantive by removing all the smearing and actually giving it some backing.

What is most objectional to one, is quite acceptable to another.
For me and many others it starts with the greatest act of bastardisation perpetrated on the Australian public. From there it cascades with a plethora of mistakes and appalling misjudgements that have actually harmed Australians and their interests (not to mention deaths of asylum seekers).

Perhaps you could convince otherwise, I doubt it. Because in my opinion and based on the information at my disposal right now, she is the worst Prime Minister we have ever had.

You mean that "information" behind all the smoke and mirrors and hyperbole and reactionary paranoia that none of us have ever been privileged enough to observe?

Look, it should be pretty easy to at least start trying to build up your claim, but so far there has been an embarrassing deficit of details. Specific and exact reasons is what you should aim for; nebulous blanket statements should be saved for private discussions with folks like-minded.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

How can you so deftly miss the point completely?

Am I to understand that you have nothing "substantive" at all?

I don't have any "WORST PM EVER!" opinions.

I do.

Saying she's an average PM is naturally a moderate opinion, not that I have even argued that. You're the one going ballistic with shallow claims and it's up to you to make them substantive by removing all the smearing and actually giving it some backing.

Pfft!
I have given some reasons for my opinion. I honestly don't know how you missed them. What I do know is that if you don't like them, I don't really care.

Worst PM ever.

 

[Legend]

Am I to understand that you have nothing "substantive" at all?

I do.

Um, yes, that would be my point. Let's take it one step at a time, shall we?

1. You say the issue subjective.
2. I tell you that although subjective, you can still have empty and silly opinions, especially if there's no attempt made to add substance to it.
3. You enquire as to where the substance of my opinion is that yours lacks.
4. I inform you that I haven't opined anything, you're the one saying she's the worst PM ever, meanwhile I haven't even argued that she's not bad (although I don't think she is), just implicitly that she isn't the worst and that you need substance for your extraordinary opinion to not be considered ridiculous.
5. You say that you think she's the worst.

Was that meant to be intelligent? How does that fit into what I said?

Pfft!
I have given some reasons for my opinion. I honestly don't know how you missed them. What I do know is that if you don't like them, I don't really care.

No you have not provided anything other than a series of several bullet points which collectively equated to about two vague, vacuous points.

Worst PM ever.

And you repeat yourself why? That is legitimately an indication of an obsession and/or insanity.

 

[amb]

The two obvious reasons besides many others, is the carbon tax plus the failure to stop the boats. Now she's added the cabinet re-shuffle to her report-air of very bad decisions. Rewarding her allies regardless of their incompetence/competence to do their jobs.

 

[Hallo Alfie]

[qimg]http://www.b3tards.com/u/420c52b7900bd7084f02/wtf-dog.jpg[/qimg]

I guess that means you don't actually have any "reasonable and substantive" arguments as per your previous comment.

No you have not provided anything other than a series of several bullet points which collectively equated to about two vague, vacuous points.

A few more than two. Here's a reminder:

- An unpopular and distrusted leader
- Craig Thompson
- sneaky backroom deals
- the real Julia
- faceless men
- dismantling the Pacific Solution
- a minority coalition-type government with the morons Greens and independents that lurches from disfunctional to functional at various times.
- the new real Julia
- An unpopular carbon tax based on deceptions and the biggest act of bastardisation backflip in Australian political history.
- Abject failure on border protection, boat arrivals and offshore processing.
- Deaths on the rocks at Christmas Island.
- East Timor
- A history of appalling delivery on projects.
- BER
- Pink Batts
- the real real new Julia
- Policy backflips and abandonment of Party policy
- The knifing of an elected prime minister
- The Malaysian solution
- The NBN and overruns
- Mining tax
- pokies reform
- one more try at a new Julia
- Gay marriage
- Peter Slipper
- Union money
- Silencing of media dissent
- Australia network contracts

And you repeat yourself why? That is legitimately an indication of an obsession and/or insanity.

Is it?
Evidence please?

Actually, repeating the same behaviour and expecting a different result, is insanity.

Obsession is making another poster's comments your signature.
Interestingly it was you I mimicked, and your words I copied. derp derp.

 

[lionking]

The two obvious reasons besides many others, is the carbon tax plus the failure to stop the boats. Now she's added the cabinet re-shuffle to her report-air of very bad decisions. Rewarding her allies regardless of their incompetence/competence to do their jobs.

Plus she's a woman.

 

[Sceptic-PK]

Jesus *********** Christ.