The Monk’s Tales

Clearly poor old Tony Abbott has a lot of time on his hands with the revelation that he is about to release a new – bound to be bestselling book – called “Battlelines.”

According to this report, Mr Abbott is sick and tired of the namby-pamby “feel-good” forward-thinking culture that is emerging in Australia and wants to see a return to what he calls “conservative traditional values.”

Mr Abbott suggested the Liberal Party should place the concept of strengthening traditional family values high on its policy agenda.

“Conservatism was the doctrine that dare not speak its name,” Mr Abbott said. “Now I think it is important that conservatism be acknowledged as a critically important component of the strands of thinking within the Liberal Party.

Aah, the return of the “old slient majority!”

“I think conservatism has a potential appeal which may well be much broader than the appeal of political philosophies which have historically been more acceptable in Australia, such as liberalism and socialism” he said.

An interesting display of “Abbott logic.” According to Mr Abbott, a philosophy which has been traditionally less-appealing in Australia, should be more appealing simply because he says so? Fascinating stuff. A bit like Jean Luc Picard saying “Make it so.”

Furthermore, despite the majority of Australians now of the opinion that the option of marriage should be available to same sex couples, Mr Abbott has the whole gay marriage issue clearly in his sights and wants to perpetuate discrimination by further elevating the superiority of “traditional marriage!”

“The point I make in the book is that a society that is moving towards some kind of recognition of gay unions, for instance, is surely capable of providing additional recognition to what might be thought of as traditional marriage,” he said.

I can see his point. We simply can’t have a society that has the same equality and recognition for same sex couples and opposite sex couples.
Mr Abbott’s concept must be something akin to a budget “no frills” concept of marriage for same sex couples as opposed to a “premium members club” type marriage for opposite sex couples.

“Something akin to Matrimonial Causes Act marriage ought to be an option for people who would like it,” Mr Abbott said. “Even though [marriage] is probably the most important commitment that any human being can make, in fact there are many, many contracts which are harder to enter and harder to get out of than this one.”

I know what he means. I tried to return a mobile phone once. It was a bloody nightmare.

The Matrimonial Causes Act, abandoned in 1975 in exchange for a “no-fault” system, provided 14 grounds for divorce, including adultery, desertion, cruelty, habitual drunkenness, imprisonment and insanity, or separation for more than five years

And his point is? (Completely lost on me.)

Or is he suggesting that same sex “marriages” are almost definitely going to involve adultery, cruelty, habitual drunkenness and insanity, unlike those good god-fearing opposite sex marriages?

Mr Abbott confessed that he had finally come to terms with the 2007 election loss through a process akin to “grieving” and was prepared to stay in politics over the long term.

“Like everybody else I am subject to the electors, the preselectors and circumstance.”

Well yes. And the fact that nobody likes you.

He said writing the book had been therapeutic, admitting to feeling “a little sorry for myself” after the election defeat, which he said particularly hurt because “I think we lost to an unworthy opponent”.

“A little sorry for himself?” “Gutted” would perhaps be a more appropriate description. It seems as though Tony just can’t get over the fact, that the majority of Australians rejected everything that the Liberal party and people like Tony Abbott stood for at the last election.

Of course, if Mr Abbott thinks he is on to “a winner” by motivating the Liberal party to navigate back towards traditional, conservative right-wing values, I’m sure the sentiment will appeal to someone.

Born to rule, as always.

130 Responses

  1. From the Matrimonial Causes Act NSW:

    16 Where wife domiciled in New South Wales

    Any wife who at the time of the institution of the suit has been domiciled in New South Wales for three years and upwards (provided she did not resort to New South Wales for the purpose of such institution) may present a petition to the Court praying that her marriage may be dissolved on one or more of the grounds following:
    (a) that her husband has without just cause or excuse wilfully deserted the petitioner and without any such cause or excuse left her continuously so deserted during three years and upwards and no wife who was domiciled in New South Wales when the desertion commenced shall be deemed to have lost her domicile by reason only of her husband having thereafter acquired a foreign domicile
    (b) that her husband has during three years and upwards been a habitual drunkard and either habitually left the petitioner without the means of support or habitually been guilty of cruelty towards her
    (c) that at the time of the presentation of the petition her husband has been imprisoned for a period of not less than three years and is still in prison under a commuted sentence for a capital crime or under a sentence to imprisonment for seven years or upwards
    (d) that her husband has within five years undergone frequent convictions for crime and been sentenced in the aggregate to imprisonment for three years or upwards and left the petitioner habitually without the means of support
    (e) that within one year previously her husband has been convicted of having attempted to murder the petitioner or of having assaulted her with intent to inflict grievous bodily harm
    (f) that during one year previously her husband has repeatedly assaulted and cruelly beaten the petitioner.

    Now go to court and try to prove it….

    The Marriage Act overruled all of this. A no fault clause meant that women now do not have to prove that their husband ‘repeatedly assaulted and cruelly beat(en) the petitioner’ nor that she had to put up with it for over a year. Note re above: the woman has to have been repeatedly beaten for over a year to claim that this a cause for divorce.

  2. As a “conservative” he is resistant to change. The most obscene change for him and his like was being turfed out of power.

    I don’t know what he expects: a perpetual Liberal reign perhaps, like an earthly version of an eternal heavenly “order”.

    He’s said they were “a good government”, he’s said they were defeated by an “unworthy” opponent, he’s blamed “sleepwalking” electors.

    All the blame-shifting you can name, but no evidence of he and his party accepting responsibility for their situation.

    Which makes a mockery of their conservative rhetoric about “self-responsibility”.

    He says he’s “come to terms” with the election defeat, but it looks like he’s still in denial … and, as the stubborn born-to-rule conservative, unlikely to change from that stance. He’s right, you see, and will always be right, even when political ousting proves him wrong. It’s we, the voters, who are wrong and / or being tricked.

  3. So typical of Conservative thinking – back to the dark ages.

    What Tony fails to evaluate is that since 1975 women have evolved towards financial independence. it is no longer a man’s world in terms of the “wife” being financially dependent on her husband and therefore “stuck” in a relationship dominated by the male half.

    Tony probably advocates a return to the days that prohibited females from entering loan contracts, mortgages and rental agreements on the grounds of their gender. This also started changing around the same time. As if women would support such loss of social freedom – Not. Nor would men for that matter. The responsibility for men as sole breadwinner was enormous and meant enormous pressure. Its little wonder that the life-span of the average male was so limited.

    But I did enjoy watching Divorce Court on the TV during that era. A 1970s reality show. Divorce lawyers could make even more serious lucre than they already do and become celebrities to boot.

  4. Soo..Tony Abbott wants something similar to The Matrimonial Causes Act..that you can beat your wife for 12 months before she can apply for divorce, that she has to prove beyond doubt that during a 3 year period that she was ‘deserted’ (presumably continuous, because if he lobs and refuses to leave, then you cannot claim that you were ‘deserted’).

    And a favorite (less than), that the partner tried to murder and inflict grevious bodily harm..but this has to be within the period of a year. Therefore if one’s partner tries to murder one in say ’05 and again in ’07 one cannot apply for divorce in ’10 because the murder attempts were not within 12 months from the application. (I might have this one wrong..it’s very old law, but that’s how I think that it’s been previously interpreted).

  5. Tony Abbott is simply trying to turn the Liberal Party platform into something approaching the hardcore religious right-wing platforms of overseas governments. The political simplicity of these platforms makes it hard for oppositions to argue

    “So you are trying to tear down the sanctity of marriage then?”
    “Arguing against this proposition is an argument supporting child porn”
    “That is not what I think Jesus would do”

    And so on.

    This strategy can only work if the current government buys into it though. After all, Rudd is openly Christian. That and I don’t think that Australia is as hard-right as Abbott thinks they are. Sure, a good portion of them are xenophobic racists, but we already have proof a majority of Aussies desire an equal rights to marriage for single-sex couples.

  6. Just like Howard’s desire to return society to a bygone era, the conservative mantra has changed little. What drives them to the desire to resurrect such outrageous, outdated and long ago rejected issues?

    WorkChoices, affected women disproportionately, Abbott’s stance on abortion and now marriage. It seems to matter not that that half the electorate, if not more, are represented by females who will spurn any attempts to hinder them as they progress towards true equality. Where is the female representation on the front bench other than Bishop?

    Could it be that the Opposition are a bunch of narrow minded geriatrics who cannot be budged from the fifties?

    In terms of gay partnerships, Sodomy laws in Australia were repealed from 1975 to 1990 depending on the state. Tasmania stubbornly clung on until being forced to decriminalise sodomy in 1997. Abbott is a religious nutjob whose attitudes towards certain elements of modern society including human sexuality are shaped by the bible. The bit about outlawing homosexuality is in Corinthians 6 9-11 when Paul announced to the masses that “men who lie with men shall not inherit the kingdom of God”. Any chance of salvation for homosexual men was thereby extinguished.

    Fast forward two milenia and the religious freaks are still at it. While I respect the religious beliefs of people in general, it is a dangerous scenario when political entities attempt to execute social control according to their religious dogma.

  7. In terms of gay partnerships, Sodomy laws in Australia were repealed from 1975 to 1990 depending on the state.

    It’s also worth pointing out that not all gay men engage in sodomy, and it’s also something that heterosexual couples have been known to engage in too.

    Kind of throws a spanner in the works of Tony Abbott’s simplistic black and white, right and wrong view of the world.

  8. On the subject of the Bible & homosexuality – I thought we were a “secular” society with a secular government? Even if we were to take Corinthians 6, 9-11 as “gospel truth” (sorry, couldn’t help myself) – that refers to their admittance to Judea/Christian heaven. God will (supposedly) judge these flaunters of Biblical law, it is not man’s job.

    I get very aggravated when people start mixing their religion with secular law.

  9. Kind of throws a spanner in the works of Tony Abbott’s simplistic black and white, right and wrong view of the world.

    Almost anything approaching reality does that, reb. Abbott is simply trying to carry out his role of “priest” in a government capacity. I can’t stand it when Reverend Niles does it – I’m just as amenable to it when Abbott give it a shot.

  10. Hi Reb,

    has my last comment gone to the Spaminator? If so could you rescue please.

  11. No, there’s nothing in the Spaminator RN…

  12. My understanding is that Tony Abbott wants to take all couples back to when there was a ‘faults’ clause to divorce. This would fit in with his Catholic background where there is no divorce.

  13. Thanks reb, it was a response to your comment @ 2.00pm re sodomy laws:

    Yes reb, that;s true. Sodomy was defined as any sexual act that could not lead to procreation. From Wikipedia:

    A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does not lead to procreation. It also has a range of similar euphemisms.[1] These acts typically include oral sex, anal sex, and bestiality; in practice such laws have rarely been enforced against heterosexual couples.

    “any sexual act which does not lead to procreation” by definition should include sexual acts between infertile couple and sexual acts performed with contraceptive devices.

    Again, archaic and defunct.

  14. Ben..this is what we were saying..that Rudd having taken the middle ground, that unless Turnbull wants to do the hard yards re policy that the only option was to secure the hard right/Christian vote. (So..is Abbott currently lobbying for a takeover?) Mind you, I’m not so keen on the Christian vote being seen as hard right as where would we be without those Christians who lobblied for years for the release of Asylum Seekers..those who demanded that Ruddock remove his Amnesty International badge, and who work hard and long in the soup kitchens.

  15. RN..likewise casting one’s you’know’what’s'it on barren earth is likewise a sin. Hence also why a marriage is null and void if a woman is found to be barren…aka a waste of good effort.. It’s the Catholic thing where procreation is IT. Therefore barren women are equivalent to homosexual relationships….according to some churches.

  16. And re Abbott’s statement:

    “Something akin to Matrimonial Causes Act marriage ought to be an option for people who would like it,” Mr Abbott said.

    Therefore women could be coerced into a marriage where their only way to get out is something ‘akin to Matrimonial Causes Act’ which states that a woman has to prove that she has been hit for a 12 month period before this is a reasonable claim for divorce.

    As Abbott says..’an option for people who would like it’.

    So, which sort of people would like it.

    Or perhaps (being generous), Abbott hasn’t actually read the Matrimonial Causes Act.

  17. Hi Min,

    My understanding is that Tony Abbott wants to take all couples back to when there was a ‘faults’ clause to divorce. This would fit in with his Catholic background where there is no divorce.

    That’s precisely the point, Abbott’s whole agenda is driven by Catholicism and underpinned by biblical doctrine. Although their exist literally hundreds of references to inferring that marriage is a permanent institution, perhaps the clearest is this:

    1 Corinthians 7:10-11

    To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.

    From the book of Genesis (chapter 2) right through to the Greek bible, marriage is considered to be sacrosanct. So, ex alter boy Abbott really has no choice but to submit to biblical teachings given his Christian upbringing. What a distorted reality viewed by Abbott?

  18. So Min, can’t recall any biblical ramblings/teachings for being “deliberately barren” within a marriage as Julia Gillard has been accused.

    Of course it wasn’t possible to be deliberately barren even in later biblical times.

    I’m sure the church has made some rule up to cover this omission.

  19. RN..alter boy is probably accurate re Abbott ;-) RN..we have..a man shall not cast his you know what upon the earth (or which ever is closest to the bed :-) That is, the Catholic Church will not accept the withdrawal method as contraception, nor condoms. Both are considered a sin as it is considered casting upon barren earth.

    It’s the sin of Onan (all good people, especially our gay friends..close your eyes):

    Quote:
    ANY sexual activity which attempts to bypass reproduction is a sin. God joined the creation of life together with the pleasures of sexual intercourse. Birth control and abortion attempt to defeat the creation of life that is entwined by Nature’s God with the reproductive act. So does masturbation.

    In addition, masturbation is a homosexual act: sex with a person of the same sex, namely yourself.

    The Bible refers to the deed as the sin of Onan. Onan was the son of Judah and Shuah. Genesis 38:4. The Lord slew Onan’s brother for wickedness. Judah told Onan to marry his brother’s wife “and raise up seed to thy brother.” Genesis 38:8. But Onan did not want to have children by his brother’s wife.

    “And Onan knew that the seed should not be his; and it came to pass, when he went in unto his brother’s wife, that he spilled it on the ground, lest that he should give seed to his brother.”

    And so therefore we have the sins – those that deliberately avoid spilling seeds via contraception and sex with a person who cannot conceive (which is where the anti gay thing kicks in).

    Being barren was a cause for divorce, prior to Abbott’s Marital Act. That is (without getting too technical), it was a cause for a marriage to be null and void (aka voided as compared with divorce).

    Again (without getting too technical)..prior, the only reason for a divorce was adultery but only by the female. The reasoning being ‘spurious offspring’. That is, if a male committed adultery there was no effect on the marriage (marriage being ‘a contract’). However, if a female committed adultery it would effect ‘the contract’ via inheritance laws. And this was basically it..

    So there we have it..based on interpretation (misinterpretation) of biblical teachings, we have that to not have children is a sin..either via contraception or being in a relationship where the other partner is unable to have children (gay or a barren female).

    Will now get down from the soapbox….

  20. Abbott hasn’t changed from his school days. Of course a rabid catholic would want to take women’s access to divorce back to the dark ages, he’s never believed in equality of the sexes. Although strangely uncatholic like, when he fathered his first child, Abbott refused to marry the woman and ‘escaped’ by joining the seminary (that supportive haven and protective bolthole for many men). Abbott’s strict catholic views seem to be for others to observe and not himself.

    Whilst at uni Abbott was known for his anti female, anti gay and racist attacks which bordered on terrorism throughout the uni community.

    Women should know that Tony Abbott is not on their side.

    Fellow students recall a champion of the right

    “He was very aggressive, particularly towards women and homosexuals”.

    Published university reports show that after a narrow defeat in the university senate elections in 1976 – Mr Abbott’s first year of an economics-law degree – he kicked in a glass panel door.

    In the ensuing two years, he was repeatedly accused in the university paper of being a right-wing thug and bully who used sexist and racist tactics to intimidate his opponents.

    Abbott’s sexual assault charge:

    …The incident that prompted Ms Wilson’s accusation occurred while she spoke.

    When it came to court the following January, Mr Abbott was flanked by his parents, a legal team including a QC, and seven witnesses.

    Advocates for Ms Wilson are to this day flabbergasted at the firepower Mr Abbott wheeled in, which left their under-represented side wilting.

  21. Given that our Frolykz thread was suddenly severely de-Frolyk’ed..I was thinking about what makes a marriage..this refers back to Frolykz.

    It’s a partnership, perhaps one person takes out the garbage, perhaps one grows vegies, one person cooks, one person cleans (or a combo), one person loves gardening the other loves shopping and decorating and they have friends/family around for dinner/they visit friends and family. But all in all, it’s about being in a domestic partnership.

    As per Frolykz..it’s all about mulled wine and kitchen dancing.

  22. Without wishing to get off topic, the mulled wine was a success, as was the dinner which Victor has posted about over at Food Trail.

    Back on topic,

    Kittyltter, who could forget his “that’s bullshit” remark to Nicole Roxon..?

    He’s such a gentleman isn’t he?

    His ego must know no bounds. What on Earth makes him think that anyone would want to read his tripe?

    I give it three weeks before it’s in bargain bins…

  23. Reb..have just checked over to Food Trail. You now have ZILCH brownie points re being hard done by. You are one lucky bloke..

  24. You are one lucky WCP reb – what a great bf you have there (I just checked his blog on mins recommendation).

  25. WCP..translation please joni…(that is unless it’s not for public exhibition :-) ).

    Now where we..oh yes, the Mad Monk. He who wants to take us all back to where women could not obtain a divorce unless they could prove (somehow) that they were beaten severely or were threatened with death within a 12 month space of time.

    Re Abbott..I don’t think that he knows what he is talking about but is just repeated some sort of church dogma..that he has not read the previous legislation nor understands it’s ramifications.

    This is another one of Abbott’s Bernie Banton’s moments…no idea of what’s happening, no idea of anything in particular…

  26. Hi reb
    Kittyltter, who could forget his “that’s bullshit” remark to Nicole Roxon..?

    No-one will if Abbott gets the leader of the opposition gig, you can bet we’ll be seeing a lot of that video clip in ads.

    His ego must know no bounds. What on Earth makes him think that anyone would want to read his tripe?

    I’m the conservative male, hear me roar! (and if that doesn’t work I’ll threaten, abuse and become violent) :lol:

    He and the other religion inspired politicians think that they can just push their views onto the Australian electorate, which is why I am against the current ploy of religion being allowed to dominate politics (and public policy) through over representation in the parties.

    Tony Abbott – Electoral Chick Magnet?

    I know – WTF?!?

    Yet this would have to have crossed the minds of the mysterious forces pushing the Two Tonys leadership option – either that, or the Coalition have so lost the plot that they’ve decided elections no longer really matter…

    …For the Coalition to not go backwards at the next election (let alone win), they have to substantially improve their female voter base before the next election campaign starts, simply to give them some realistic base to launch a final assault on Labor from during the campaign itself.

    Which begs the question of the Two Tonys replacing Turnbull and Bishop – can anyone honestly say “Tony Abbott – Electoral Chick Magnet” without physically laughing?

  27. RN, on July 12th, 2009 at 2:19 pm Said:
    Wikipedia:

    A sodomy law is a law that defines certain sexual acts as sex crimes. The precise sexual acts meant by the term sodomy are rarely spelled out in the law, but is typically understood by courts to include any sexual act which does not lead to procreation. It also has a range of similar euphemisms.[1] These acts typically include oral sex, anal sex, and bestiality; in practice such laws have rarely been enforced against heterosexual couples.

    So what you are saying, RN, is that Tony Abbott would immediately be in breach of any sodomy laws ….

    … the man is a wanker …

    ++++++++++++++++++++

    … and – why do we bother? How do continue to they get elected?

    ++++++++++++++++++++

    … what church does Kevin Rudd “belong” to …?

  28. And this guy’s my local member? OUCH!!!

  29. Peter Reith was once my local member when I lived in Vic, but now it’s probably one of the very few sensible and moderate members in the Liberal party, Joanna Gash. So they rewarded her sensibility and moderatism, and that she easily won her seat for the umpteenth time whilst another moderate Liberal down south of us lost his to Labor, by demoting her in the shadow ministry.

    And they wonder why they’re on the nose with the electorate when they allow radicals like Abbott run loose.

  30. handyr and Adrian – I rest my case! LOL!

  31. WCP – Wealth Crazed Prick – it is the usual definition of Sir reb of Hobart.

  32. “WCP – Wealth Crazed Prick”

    What about the rest of him?

  33. No-one knows there is anything else… hehe

  34. What a gigantic surprise…the Pious F@ckwit is stirring up some agitational promotion for his aspirational bestseller.

    I wouldn’t p!ss on Abbott if his sh!t was on fire…you know the drill.

    BTW I meant Judgemental Arsehole, not so much Pious F@ckwit.

  35. I liked Back to the Future as much as the next bloke, but until The Monk gets hisself a plutonium-burning DeLorean, something tells me that Michael J Fox has nothing to worry about.

    The Lberal Party won’t be be time travelling any time soon.

  36. That’ll be Lord Reb, thank you very much.

  37. A thousand apologies Lord Reb.

  38. KittyL made mention of Abbott’s love child..who turned out not to be his. Abbott was obviously doing the deed though..and this occurred while Abbott was at the seminary????

    From Wik*:

    ..and entered St Patrick’s Seminary, Manly, but subsequently decided to leave and chose another career path, citing an inability “to keep his hands off attractive Catholic females” while at college.

    Yes indeed, just the type of leader the Liberal Party needs…

  39. Abbott should be more worried about Possum’s latest electoral pendulum than getting the Coalition back to some archaic form of US style religious conservatism.

    As Insiders stated yesterday the government must be sorely tempted to go for a March election if figures like that keep up. It would mean a wipeout for the Coalition with 10 definite seats lost and anywhere from an additional 5 to 10 probably gone.

    20 seats possibly lost, it would take more than a decade of a very incompetent Labor government for the Coalition to claw that back.

    Also something interesting that came up on Insiders, and something the government won’t comment on, is that it appears the deficit will not be anywhere near as large as being projected because the loss of tax revenue won’t be anywhere near as bad as stated due to China and India still purchasing Australian raw materials and business not collapsing as they have in other countries.

    Watch this space over the coming months on that, but especially leading up to the next election, when I’m certain the government will, “surprise, surprise” announce they have done so well in economic management that the budget deficit will only be ..% (insert figure) of the original forward estimate.

  40. Abbott is giving conservatism a bad name.

    He is not a conservative. A conservative is about recognising social change when they become norms and not using policy/laws to drive social change.

    Abbott is not a conservative. Abbott is a regressive. He is about using policy/laws to hold back social chance which has already become social norms.

    Conservatives in this country should think really carefully about what they’re supporting with Abbott. He has the feel of lurking in the shadows for a long time before picking the right moment to make his move. He’s learnt well from Howard – who in the end failed miserably – as the only piece of good news

  41. Adrian..Interesting as always from Possum.

    So Wentworth is in the Orange Zone and so Turnbull could lose his seat..a possibility.

  42. Unbeliever..there is obviously not one vote to be had from Abbott’s (as you say) regressive stance. Abbott’s ideas are very obviously polarising…so much so that a good portion of his own party would be appalled at taking it back to the ’70′s.

    Therefore, it has to be a play for the leadership (recently run pic of fit Abbott in running shorts..and he is comparing himself with whom???). Which is just shortly after the tabloid piece of Hockey climbing Mt Kilimanjaro.

    As mentioned previously..Rudd has claimed the middle ground and so there might be some who think that the only way to go is to move further to the right with a leader such as Abbott.

  43. “when I’m certain the government will, “surprise, surprise” announce they have done so well in economic management that the budget deficit will only be ..% (insert figure) of the original forward estimate.”

    Gee thanks for the newsflash ! This has been Ruddsy’s game all along. Talk up the crisis and how bad everyone is going to suffer then look like an economic genius when things don’t pan out as badly as predicted. Of course he could have been honest and said that we started from a strong position and are doing relatively well so don’t panic, but then he would have sounded too much like Turnbull I guess.

  44. davo, on July 13th, 2009 at 1:15 pm Said:

    Of course he could have been honest and said that we started from a strong position and are doing relatively well so don’t panic….

    But then he would not have been honest at all as we really didn’t start from a strong position. The previous government were bereft in so many areas and had underspent so much on essential long term needs that sooner rather than later someone would have had to go into deep debt to rebuild all that was neglected for so long.

    Rudd rightly decided to use the GFC to undertake that essential spending.

    Rudd in a refreshing change from the previous government has been mostly honest and upfront, and it has been Turnbull who has been sprouting all the doom and gloom then changing his stance from week to week.

  45. “The previous government were bereft in so ……… ”

    This has been another announcement from your local Labor party office

  46. “Talk up the crisis and how bad everyone is going to suffer then look like an economic genius when things don’t pan out as badly as predicted.”

    Oh, you are funny Davo…

    It was Peter Costello who coined the phrase “economic tsunami” with reference to the GFC, so I’m afraid you can’t credit Rudd with that…

    LOL..!!

  47. Talk up the crisis and how bad everyone is going to suffer then look like an economic genius when things don’t pan out as badly as predicted.

    My recollection of Rudd’s response is contrary to this. I recall accusations from the RWDBs re the Rudd Government’s inability to say the “R” word. Splashed across all media was the Government’s refusal to acknowledge that Australia was indeed even heading for a recession.

    Explain how that is talking up the crisis? Evidence please?

  48. “Explain how that is talking up the crisis? Evidence please?”

    Dear me we’ve found the only person in Australia that hasn’t heard Ruddsy refer to the GFC !(every 5 seconds)

  49. davo,

    As RBN says, it was the Opposition who were declaring that Australia was in a recession long before any conclusive figures were available..

    But don’t let the facts get in the way of a mildly amusing story…

  50. My recollection – Swan, We’re headed for a Recession. Reply from Costello (chortle), It cannot be and Swan should be castrated (or similar) for talking down the economy..this talking down will just make things worse.

    And then boom, crashy bang GFC.

    Rudd..immediate action. Turnbull..let’s wait and see. Rudd..let’s do it now and if it turns out to be not so bad, then the worst is that we took action too soon.

  51. Also davo, teh Government mantra has been for a long time:

    Australia has the lowest level of debt in the developed world and the highest level of growth

    That would be talking down the crisis.

    Turnbull and the Libs mantra with a debt truck as proof:

    He said the level of debt was likely to top the government’s calculation of $315 billion

    That would be talking up the crisis.

    Check out the link:

    http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,25749526-5013404,00.html

    You are confusing talking up with talking down.

  52. On yer Tony! These treacherous raw prawns are flippin dreamin. Ledt me put yers straight. Yer sicko world view is goin nowhere fast, OK?

    Time fer yer pinkos 2 grow up an smell the instant coffee, OK?

    Vote conservative, we’re always abso-bloomin-lutely right! We’ve got ALL the flippin answers fer troubled times, OK?

  53. That reminds me. Can anyone other than a moderator change the content of a comment, or the name under which it was posted, after it has been sent?

  54. Vote conservative, we’re always abso-bloomin-lutely right! We’ve got ALL the flippin answers fer troubled times, OK?

    The unfettered free market, yes we know, it’s the answer to all questions (shame about the resulting GFC though).

  55. Abbott’s dead right yer know, old man Howard might be the greatest political leader in bloomin human history but – he winks – the bloke wasn’t flippin conservative enough.

    Howard’s centre-left orientation is what caused the electorate to have a temporary involuntary brain krudd, OK? That an the appallin fact that every single flippin strayan journo is a card carryin member of the AL-bloody-P. The Dark satanic Mills Association of Australia is workin on a new meeja workers AWA but that’s a story fer another happy day, OK?

    What yers need ter understand today is jest how much we need is a hard right policy prescription. Yer know: a strict calvinist theocrarcy, total privatisation 2 put an end to mixed economy rubbish once an fer all, welfare reserved for deservin bosses, corporations an the markets, sheilas lawfully compelled ter spend four hour cookin and cleanin each day, all trade union extremists sent to the Afghan frontline, an the immediate end of all government social programmes, these are the kinds of inspired big picture solutions the entire flippin electorate is screamin out fer.

    Well, everyone apart from yer hopeless cycber bludgers.

    Yer tiny-brained opinions are wrong, the polls are wrong, the chatterin class are obviously embittered drongos, an the letter to the editor writers are all flippin 123% wrong. It’s moi Abbott, Crosby, Hefferenan, Janette an John against the entire universe an we’re bloomin winnin – he undoes the third button of his business shirt – let me tell yers we’re winnin the battle of big. profound and practical ideas, OK?

    An jest remember, I’m always a winner! Yer Unca BWOOCE is ALWAYS winnin, yers should get with the bloomin programme, yer don’t need yer brain no more, jest shut up an do as we say, OK?

  56. Where’s moi dinner Kitty? Wake up to yerself love. The GFC was caused by the fact there jest wasn’t enough privatisation before hand, OK? Market forces were diluted by socialist claptrap.

    The answer is simple: privatise abso-bloomin-lutely everything an the isolated cash flow issues in the markets will disappear, OK?

  57. Hey Tony, I had this bloomin narcotique nightmare at the weekend. I dreamt I had been reduced to bein the glove puppet of a fliipin doctor’s wife. It was like bein trapped in Dante’s Inferno son, let me tell yer, tha horror, tha horror …

    Fortunately I awoke before the infection spread an sacked a coupla thousand casual workers jest to prove to moiself it was all jest a bad dream an I’m still master of the bloomin universe, OK?

    The good news is, cyber bludgers, it’s suck-up, kick-down business as usual at the Dark Satanic Mills Association this fliipin Monday, OK?

  58. UB, you may be correct.
    Recently watched a documentary on the rescue/restructuring of places like Bolivia, Poland, India, China and Russia. The primary indicator in Poland, or was it Bolivia, was the supply and price of eggs once the free market was put in place.

  59. “Howard’s centre-left orientation”

    LOL!!

  60. “Howard’s centre-left orientation”

    That places Turnbull somewhere between Marx and Lenin.

  61. Well may yer sneer reb but yer best leave the right world’s intellectual messiah Sarah Palin out of yer tired leftoid tirade of abuse, or the adorable kitten gets put on performance management, OK?

  62. I think Ugly BWOOCE is really Malcolm Turnbull.

  63. Ahem, President Dick Cheney is more moi style ducky, OK?

    Turnpike? R u on drugs mate? Yer jest can’t trust a militant republican can yer? Now get back to some output oriented activity ducky b4 yer department gets hit by a tsunami of restructurin, OK?

  64. I think Ugly BWOOCE is really Dick Cheney.

  65. I know who Ugly Bwooce is but can’t say. (And it’s definitely not Legion.)

  66. Or HD.

  67. Oops. Should BWOOCE be in all capitals?

  68. I’m definetly not Noel Crichton Browne’s love child or the pen name of that flippin pillow John Bolton, OK?

  69. Legion’s only observation on BWOOCE’s bona fides is that US$500 seems an unusually high amount to be reporting as an annual salary; and I recommend that he fire his accountant first thing, if he is reporting any identifiable personal or business income whatsoever.

  70. BWOOCE commands respect at The Dark Satanic Mills tinybrains.

  71. Hum D, I don’t dislike BWOOCE. He reminds me of Wolfman Jack.

  72. Wolfman Jack?

    Now you’re showing yer age Migs…

  73. So are you reb, so are you.

  74. At the moment reb I feel 115, though I look slightly younger.

    My footy team lost, England drew the Test, and I pranged the car.
    :cry:

  75. You pranged the car?

    How did that happen?

  76. Twice..

  77. Duck Dodgems of the 21st Century.

  78. And is pranged like branged?

  79. And the verb is..umm..to pring?

  80. Prung?

  81. past tense – pronged?

  82. Min is right. I pranged it twice.

    The first was on a foggy morning last week. An unseen rock was in the middle of the road and it smashed the underside of the car, ripping a hole in the floor and generally making a mess of anything that got in its way.

    I phoned to insurer to make a claim and they hit me immediately with the $550 excess.

    That arvo I went to pick Jedda up from work. Drove into the basement carpark at work – as I’ve done without incident just about every day for the last three years – but on this occasion I ran into a cement pole, that for three years I managed to avoid.

    I phoned the insurer again to make another claim. Again I was hit up front with the $550 excess.

    That’s $1,100 in one day.

    This morning I dropped the car off at the assessor’s. AAMI were nice enough to provide me with a little 4 cylinder shit box for the next 10 days.

  83. Migs, perhaps there are a number of us who could form a Cult…this would be the semi-anti-WCP group. Those who drive 4 cylinder shit boxes but who drink $150+ wine.

  84. “An unseen rock was in the middle of the road.”

    ROFLMAO!!

  85. Reb..don’t laugh re the rock..I have been the victim of a sturdy gum tree which leaped (lept?) out at me while reversing.

  86. Min,

    I’ve also been victim to a paddock that decided to do summersaults around me while I was innocently driving along in my mini.

  87. Thankyou Min. It’s nice to know there is at least one caring person on this site.

  88. A similar thing happened to Teddy Kennedy. A river lept up, engulfed his car, and dragged it under.

  89. Migs (an aside)..you do not want yourself compared with Teddy Kennedy re your car (umm) humping a rock.

  90. Mini??? I thought it was a 7-series BMW that led to the moniker stuntreb.

  91. Well it was a BMW Mini…

  92. Reb..at least it was only the BMW, it could have been the Cooper S Mk11 1275cc with the rally seatbelts.

  93. this one.

  94. Oh, the Sunday car.

  95. Given that we are completely off topic ;-)

    http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,25778548-5001021,00.html

    He believes that women should endure the agony of labour, which is a rite of passage for building a special bond with the child.

    Good choice..let’s go to the dentist and refuse all pain killers so that we can have a special relationship with our teeth, thereby appreciating them all that more.

  96. And just to ensure everyone remains informed about life beyond blogland…

    The Federal Magistrates Court has found the CFMEU, its NSW branch and organiser Samma Manna breached s789 of the WR Act after Manna threatened to drive a concreting subcontractor into bankruptcy unless he and his workers joined the union.

  97. oh dear,

    Abbott’s just been bitch-slapped:

    Former Western Australia Labor premier Peter Dowding has hit out at Liberal frontbencher Tony Abbott’s plan to make divorce harder, saying Mr Abbott wants to retreat to “blame game” divorce.

    “The point about Tony Abbott’s argument is that he wants to retreat to a blame game so you can actually blame someone in a divorce situation,” Mr Dowding told ABC News Online.

    “It’s completely ludicrous to talk about making divorce harder at a time when people can separate easily. If you can separate easily, the question of making divorce harder or less hard is irrelevant.

    “It’s like Alice in Wonderland. It’s like stepping through a looking glass into la-la land where Tony Abbott happily sits with his morality judging people while no-one’s life gets harder or easier.”

    Mr Dowding does not think there is any room for Mr Abbott’s argument in Australian politics.

    “I don’t like people who are right-wing judgemental Catholics trying to bring their religious politics into Australian life,” he said.

    “We’re not a bunch of Americans. We don’t go round with our politicians pretending to be deeply religious and demanding that everyone else be while they go around committing adultery on the side, as they do in America.

    “And we don’t want to be in a position where people with right-wing and intolerant attitudes, like Tony Abbott, control what people believe.

    Ouch!~

  98. Migs and reb,

    how about this one:
    http://www.audi.com.au/audi/au/en2/new_cars/r8.html
    Saw one last night in Newie – very nice.

  99. very nice Dave. Wots the price tag on that one?

  100. Just wondering…but how acceptable would it be if gay marriages were subject to the same terms and conditions that Abbott is proposing. “Before the 1975 reforms, grounds for divorce included adultery, habitual drunkenness or insanity.”.

    Therefore, Abbott wants to take ‘marriage’ backwards rather than take it forward to be inclusive of all couples who are in a loving relationship.

  101. reb

    I was too scared to look it up. More than I earn over a few years I’d imaging.

    It looked damn good and sounded amazing (and that was just in a car park).

  102. The Federal Magistrates Court has found the CFMEU …threatened to drive a concreting subcontractor into bankruptcy unless he and his workers joined the union.

    Tom,

    do you think this is the beginning of an emerging pattern?

  103. Abbott wants to take ‘marriage’ backwards rather than take it forward to be inclusive of all couples who are in a loving relationship.

    I think that’s what he meant by making “traditional marriage” more “special”

  104. Around $280-300K it seems.

    The owner of the one I saw was a Doctor.

  105. Way out of my reach Dave.

    I was contemplating an S type Jag. There’s a metallic silver one going here.
    I’m not sure though…

  106. With my luck, I would back into the first parked car, run over a rock in the road and back into a gum tree.

  107. Run it into a ditch and roll it in the left hand paddock…

  108. Yep..that’s Abbott for you. A bloke who didn’t become a priest because he couldn’t keep his hands off the girls (quote from himself). But who wants to go back to a faults based style of divorce.

    From your quote Reb, without saying so I should imagine that this is what Mr Dowding was alluding to..that is, a certain amount of hypocrisy.

  109. Looks OK reb. price is good.

    I still like to old Nissan 200SXs. I miss my old S14. I still wonder why I didn’t upgrade to the S15 everytime I see one :-(

  110. My first car was a Ford Anglia, red with a white roof (weren’t they all), ran on the smell of an oily rag..up to the snow fields on many occasions. In those days I think that my old K2 skis were longer than the car.

  111. Bugger you Dave. Now that I’ve seen it I’ll have to buy one.

  112. “clink”

  113. It smells like TB & miglo have been here recently.

  114. Well said TB,

    Time for me to head home and crack open a Cooper Pale Ale me thinks.

  115. Migs, can I have a drive if you do get it? 4.6 seconds for the 0-100 sounds like fun. My old 200SX was only just sub 6.

  116. Just passing, thought I’d drop in … see what the “troops” have been squabbling about today …

    Back in a mo- need to “top” up, as we used to say in PNG! (Quite a lot, come to think of it!)

  117. And just as you arrive, I have to go.

    A wonderful evening to all…

  118. The best car I ever drove was my father’s 1980 512 Berlinetta Boxer…one night we were late going to Penrith Paceway so I drove.

    We got there in time.

  119. I spend hours on upon hours of my precious time carefully researching and preparing topics for you lot to discuss and exchange your informative opinions, and what does it turn into?

    A trip down memory-f**kin-lane about “the best car I ever ‘ad”.

    My talents are wasted here.

    Not to mention unappreciated and unrecognised…

    I might just cry myself into this glass of shiraz that has appeared before me..

  120. They are a despicable bunch reb.

  121. I drove a two cylinder 360cc Honda Scamp, dog clutch transmission, (that’ll cause a bit of research – I’ll bet), for seven years cost, $1600 brand new (only car I ever bought off a showroom floor – (advice -as an ex-new car salesman/MM – most expensive thing you can do) …

    Now, how do I get No 3 …? Back soon …

  122. Bugger!

    The Minister calls for dinner!

  123. Hey Legion, good advice, I boned the bloomin accountant mate.

    Loike I mean, imagine expectin a top bloke to pay tax on a mere income of $US500 million. I tell yers, tt’s flippin communism run amok. An it’s 123% not on, OK? I’m a banker, I’ve got a bloomin constitutionally enshrined right to not pay moi way, OK?

  124. reb, on July 14th, 2009 at 5:43 pm

    Not only are you a failure as a topic raiser but you water down a perfectly good glass of Shiraz. Go cry into something else.

  125. My grandpa used to have to cover his glass when he drank his whisky. He was so happy to be havin’ a drop that he’d cry tears of joy.

    That’s why he had to cover his glass. Didn’t want the teardrops to water it down.

  126. It smells like TB & miglo have been here recently.

    Hum D, I’m sure your nose has been trained to sniff out a cork from 10ks away.

  127. And just to ensure everyone remains informed about life beyond blogland…

    http://www.smh.com.au/national/franchisee-accused-of-underpaying-staff-20090714-dk5k.html

  128. Huh.

    I was also going to post a counter with the news story this morning of businesses using a loophole in a 2005 Howard government legislation (no surprise there) and not paying foreign students workers anything for work they did.

    This is on the back of business underpaying foreign student workers and we won’t even go into the 457 visa rorts.

    Wish some people were as diligent in naming and shaming businesses who rort and put workers into danger as they are with outing union wrong doings.

Comments are closed.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: