I find her repugnant and not because she's a woman...

A bit more info on the case:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/09/speaker-australia-parliament-resign-text-message

Gillard has consistently used personal attacks (some of the certainly accurate) against Abbott to deflect attention away from her governments ongoing snafu's.

The slipper case is just the latest gigantic fuck up in a long line with Gillard's name all over it. This wonderfully outraged woman has steadfastly refused to fire the speaker knowing it would deprive her of another vote in an already slim minority government. The same guy that would say things like:

"Look at a bottle of mussel meat! Salty Cunts in brine!" he continued in his text message to former staffer James Ashby. "Been to thw (sic) fish shop yet to buy the bottle of shell less mussells (sic)?"

I'll be the first to admit that Abbott is neither a likeable person or good prime minister material, but with no viable third alternative, I'll take him and his misogyny over Roxon's 1984-esque data retention scheme and continual attempts to increase the states right at the expense of the citizens, Conroy's 'see no evil' compulsory internet filtering and the extension of the confounding NT 'intervention' scheme that continues to pump money in to a bottomless pit but doesn't actually result in better lives for the Australian Aboriginals it's supposed to help...

Gillard's character is plainly on display. She ignores the blatant sexism of the man she, and her AG Nicola Roxon, defended and refuse to hang out to dry, but when he is revealed to be exactly what she despises, she invokes her dead father and plays the "they're picking on me cos I'm a woman" card to try and divert attention from the trainwreck that is her government. She's not even a toenail clipping from Maggie Thatcher who took to the game of politics as if men had never owned it, never hiding behind the fact she was a woman.

Since we're all in such serious fact-mode, tell me, how is Obamacare's new heavy tax burden on the middle class going to help the middle class?

There's three trillion dollars in the hands of the people--also known as capital--waiting out this 4-year nightmare. The lack of job creation and investment indicate the people do not trust this administration. Nor should they.


>> ^KnivesOut:

I like how you keep trotting out this "Obamaphone" bullshit like its something new. The Lifeline program has existed since Reagan (1984).>> ^quantumushroom:
And HOW! Chicagoan dead people who vote three times are more are still bitter about not being alive to get their free Obamaphones, but they won't be voting for that damned Romney, 'specailly now that Obama has promised free health care extending to beyond-the-grave.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^BoneRemake:
I for one will not be voting for this smug lipsmacker.

QM says we can vote for Obama in Illinois, though.

I like how you keep trotting out this "Obamaphone" bullshit like its something new. The Lifeline program has existed since Reagan (1984).>> ^quantumushroom:

And HOW! Chicagoan dead people who vote three times are more are still bitter about not being alive to get their free Obamaphones, but they won't be voting for that damned Romney, 'specailly now that Obama has promised free health care extending to beyond-the-grave.
>> ^Payback:
>> ^BoneRemake:
I for one will not be voting for this smug lipsmacker.

QM says we can vote for Obama in Illinois, though.

>> ^siftbot:

Awarding chingalera with one Power Point for fixing this video's dead embed code.


Don't go gettin' too excited, cleaning up choggie's mess is hard work!
*length=2:00:36

So, kicking someone in the neck is a 'distracting blow'? Love it. I also like "Officer involved shooting" for when a policeman kills a civilian.

1984.

Have the 1984 "Brat Pack" original

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'"
- George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3

No, you have it reversed. Assuming liberals prefer a larger government that is more engaged in telling people what to do, as well as passing laws to make them do it?

>> ^StukaFox:

A liberal reads 1984 as a warning.
A conservative reads 1984 as a blueprint.

>> ^NetRunner:

I could've just as easily have downvoted for the stupidity of your pox upon both their houses view of modern politics though. I don't really get the sense much of anyone on the left is filled with some sort of "zeal" for the "donkey" -- and the disdain for the Republicans largely stems from the way they seem to be functionally identical to the Inner Party members from 1984.
---
The fact that one side, and only one side has fully committed to this level of partisan loyalty should make even the most cynical, above the fray, non-partisan person sit up and take notice.


It seems to me having (effectively) just two parties makes some degree of partisanship mandatory for anyone participating in politics. You yourself talk of sides. A blue vs. red system like that leaves anyone truly independent-minded somewhat disenfranchised.

I was talking with a guy from California not long ago, he was pretty pissed that his tax money was being used to blow people up in other countries. Will Obama stop the killing? Will Romney? Who should someone who really, really doesn't want to have his government blow folks up vote for, the nice guy with blood on his hands or the nice guy who's waiting to get some on his? Or should there actually be some other option?

>> ^kevingrr:

As Huxley said, "It is possible to make people contented with their servitude. I think this can be done. I think it has been done in the past, but then I think it could be done even more effectively now because you can provide them with breads and circuses and you can provide them with endless distractions and propaganda."
@StukaFox
Your comment is as clever as it is simpleminded. You can worship the elephant or the donkey and I'll disagree with you based on the zeal you have for one and the disdain for the other. The world is a complicated place and whats best isn't found in one camp or the other.
Look at Huxley's last novel Island. He merges 'East and West'. He takes what he feels is best from both.


I upvoted because my reaction to this is that we've ended up in a world a lot closer to Aldous Huxley's shiny, distracted, and soul suckingly disconnected dystopia than we have 1984's drab, brutal, overtly totalitarian one. Our dystopia is much harder to break out of, because on the surface it seems open, free, and filled with prosperity, until you scratch the surface, and see the rot festering underneath.

I could've just as easily have downvoted for the stupidity of your pox upon both their houses view of modern politics though. I don't really get the sense much of anyone on the left is filled with some sort of "zeal" for the "donkey" -- and the disdain for the Republicans largely stems from the way they seem to be functionally identical to the Inner Party members from 1984. They can shamelessly go from lauding an individual mandate as the "personal responsibility principle that's essential to bring costs down" and then when the party's needs change, decry the same policy as somehow being a violation of everything that Americans hold sacred. All this while demanding they still be treated as if they were serious people of conviction and principle, and painting those who dare to point out their hypocrisy as some sort of dishonest partisan hack.

The fact that one side, and only one side has fully committed to this level of partisan loyalty should make even the most cynical, above the fray, non-partisan person sit up and take notice. Maybe it's time to stop pretending this is politics as usual, and see it for what it really is: a battle to stop a group of committed fanatics without a shred of human empathy from pushing out the last vestiges of the flawed, inept, but well-meaning opposition standing in their way.

>> ^StukaFox:

A liberal reads 1984 as a warning.
A conservative reads 1984 as a blueprint.


A anarchist reads 1984 as a challenge.

A liberal reads 1984 as a warning.
A conservative reads 1984 as a blueprint.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'George Orwell, 1984, opression' to 'George Orwell, 1984, oppression' - edited by messenger

Tags for this video have been changed from 'George Orwell' to 'George Orwell, 1984, opression' - edited by messenger

"Democrats--elect us because the other guys are nuts."

(In 1984, I participated in a high-school debate on Regan vs. Mondale. My team drew Mondale, and if you thought Kerry was lame, then you've never heard of Mondale. Maher's point above was pretty much our only available line of argument, and we got smeared. Listen also to Zappa's arguments from that time and realize that nothing has changed.)