I stopped watching after the second time in a row they had Tania Plibersek (housing minister under Rudd) on and didn't allow any housing-related questions. It was then I realised Q&A was merely a platform to launch pre-specified talking points, and not what people wanted to hear debated. Twitter was chock full of housing questions they never acknowledged.
It is what it is . nothing wrong calling a spade a spade . Its probably the most dishonest corrupt ''thing''ever in Australian politics. Exept Bob Fabian Hawke
I'll go one step further and state the decision was based on psychological factors. The establishment in the US put forward an African American president and the people went nuts for it, because in a politically correct brainwashed society, this is the ideal that 'anyone' can and should make it. In a cynical and jaded society, you 'restore the faith' in the political process by putting forward a minority representative into power. Look at all the fuss over such an ideological advancement and what impact it had on the masses, they were able to swallow a LOT more generally unpalatable policy because the person in charge was now an ideological standard and you'd be labelled all sorts of nasty things if you said anything bad about a minority group representative as head of state. Australia is no different. Look at the utter crap that was used as political leverage in the 'misogynist' debate. A classic example of using the populations' own ideological standards against them for political gain & divergence from important issues, especially during a period of time where economic factors are deteriorating and unpalatable policy changes and taxes are being enforced on the population. It's not exactly subtle psychology at play, but I doubt many people in the electorate will be observant enough to notice it for what it really is. It's not exactly like the best person for the job (or was even democratically elected by the population) is currently running your country. Ask yourselves why. Furthermore, be sharply aware of the Rudd factor. The 'prodigal son' of the electorate who's sitting in the background there and if the Labor party are looking to get swept away by next election, you may very well see 'the people's choice' shoved back in the chair to win another term for the party. Classic bait and switch. Politics is a smoke and mirrors sideshow. Don't think for a moment they don't have professional psychologists hard at work in their lobby groups and campaign team who study and implement strategies like this for a living.
I'm definitely one for plain speaking language as well, but I will concede the term was used in a derogatory fashion, not specifically for the gender, but for the individual. It was merely taken the wrong way in the context of my point, but it's not that hard to change a word. There's plenty of non-gender specific terms you can use to describe that politician that's equally applicable to any sex, race, gender or species. Changed my post at the top to reflect this. Only that specific word mind you, the rest stays as is.
Women shouldnt be allowed to vote let alone enter politics , they should be at home washing the dishes and getting tea ready
Until I read the other comments I thought it was the comedian. [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oP-rkzJ6yZw[/youtube]
Now she is trying to force legislation through outlawing any kind of speech that someone else might find insulting. As leader of the Communist Party she is doing a splendid job of turning the country into a place that is the opposite of what the ANZACS fought to provide for future generations of Australians.
Some childish comments about a Mrs Silver Queen youtube video recently were seen as offensive to women (especially by Auspm) but this vicious vitriol seems to be just fine I thought the Gillard video was pretty funny - seems nobody has any sense of humour when it comes to politics
There's a stark difference between object sexualisation of women and being critical of ones character (regardless of gender). I made the error of promoting a sexist slur (which I rectified rightly when it was pointed out), but I make absolutely no apologies for my opinion of her character. Male or female, the comments are just. Let's not derail the comment based on assumed hypocracy here, because the two are absolutely not linked. Incidently, wtf is it with this forum in that disagreeing with a view in debate boils not down to arguing the facts, but this constant need to attack the character of the other party with assumed hypocracy? We see this crap over and over again around here and I think it's responsible for more thread locks on SS than anything else all things said and done.
Well here is a summary of most of the comments in this thread so far: Forum etiquette rule number 2 says: "Hateful, racist, vilifying, discriminatory, threatening, inflammatory, malicious, defamatory or libelous posts will be deleted, and the account of the forum member responsible may at the discretion of the Administrator be suspended or terminated. KEEP IT CLEAN!" I find most of these comments here hateful and vilifying. Doesn't matter that she is a politician - she is still a human being. None of the comments are debating anything about politics.
^^^ I understand where your coming from and sympathise, although I would argue politicians ARE significantly different to normal people simply because they have somehow obtained powers far, far beyond any other person. Subject to some debate, my first impression is that the first three are along the lines of what you are saying but the last four seem totally fine with the 4th potentially going either way. It's interesting to compare the first three to those in the ABC word cloud that Jonesy posted. In many respects I would typically find birdman's comment: worse, except that he put a smiley face and being a dick is part of his character (Oops, I'd better smiley face that comment before I get in the sh1t)
Omg and since when have the forum rules been enforced around here? Lol Seriously though , I wasn't referring to the specific discussion on the chief bogan but rather this insidious debating monologue around here boiling arguments down to "we'll your point shouldn't be taken seriously because you're a hypocrite" 0.o As for this BS about respecting her as a human being I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on that one mate. I do not give the unearned and that.... Thing has not earned one iota of respect for this little black duck to even be polite in discussing her I stand by my comments and attitude and make absolutely no apologies for what I think and believe. Take it or leave it
I wish I had an ounce of gold for every time I've read or heard someone say this in 2012, I'd be a gazzillionaire. I'd quote Pat Condell but somebody would probably find that offensive too.
