Sorry Greens, we’re not apologising.

Bleeuch says:

07:12am | 04/04/11

Regardless of whether or not this is sarcastic, one part of what you said is, in a way, true.
We do need Pauline Hanson. Not for her racist remarks or for her beauty, but because she is so non-PC. How many politicians are there that speak such blatant truth as her. None that I know of, that’s for sure…

JohnB says:

07:25am | 04/04/11

Yes we do need PH. She represents the views of her constituents. I do not see much of that going on elsewhere.  The parties are wheeling and dealing and sop are the present federal independents. The only way we the constituents come in to it is they need our votes.

I say more independents that reflect what, WE THE VOTERS WANT. Besides being a red neck, her intentions are good.

Kevin says:

07:35am | 04/04/11

I thought the Libs had pinched all her policies.  By reckoning, the views of the “redneck idiots” are over represented in Australian politics at the moment.

Harold says:

08:05am | 04/04/11

@acotrel,I think the Greens are doing a very good job of Rednecking all by themselves.Gay marriage is a Priority right up the with Anti Semitism and Tree hugging…Bobby must come out(no pun intended )and Publicly condemn Rhiannon and Byrnes for this stance against Israel,we along with all our neighbours eliminated this anti Jewish thing back in the forties with an event called WW2.
Hanson is kicked from pillar to post every time she opens her mouth.
The fact that the gutless Gillard team will not condemn the Greens for the Anti Israel thing shows the Govt either supports the views of Rhiannon and Byrnes or it is imputent and cannot act

Andrew says:

08:20am | 04/04/11

Sad and true, this is democracy at work. Pauline, Fred and there rest of the parties who made up the bed-sheet ballot will certainly provide the NSW voters with some fun times ahead. I hope that this becomes a welcome distraction from the toil that is required to rebuild NSW.

Michael says:

08:54am | 04/04/11

We tolerate your kind Acotrel, so why not tolerate Pauline? she’s an idiot, of that there is no doubt. Her right to her opinion is set in stone, like it or not she does represent some of the people of the country, they also have a right to be heard.

john says:

09:32am | 04/04/11

Well well well, haven’t the tables turned.  The very people that demonised Pauline might end up in jail themselves when all the illegal activity to sell the states power assets is unraveled. Who knows what else will be discovered.

The very people that hurl insults at Pauline are hypocrites to the extreme.  Labor & liberals should take notice that if the electorate has brought Pauline into the fold, the liberals & labor might loose more seats to the nationals in future federal & state elections as was the case in NSW. Labor is at risk of becoming a minor party.

She’s already in front in vote counting. She’s earned the right to kick some lame arses into place. The electorate will be kicking them with her.

I dare the liberals & labor/greens to demonise her now…go on…. has the “cat cut your tongue” or are the parties like a “Cat on a hot tin roof”?

Molly Dooka says:

10:00am | 04/04/11

Why do we need Hanson when we have Abbott?
The redneck idiots that are attracted to Hanson were all at the lunatic fringe rally where Abbott acknowledged their support and assumed their leadership.
Yes, I know honest hard working mums and dads - who go home to their children at night and put on their sheets and peaked caps to rally their hate.

john says:

10:16am | 04/04/11

@Molly Dooka As opposed the extreme left lunatics that are talking about BDS in regards to Israel? Or the leftist labor spenders that spent of all the Australians tax payers dollars on pinkbatts and cash give away’s for people to breed, so to purchase their plasma& 3D TV’s, whilst pensioners went hungry?
Or are you talking about the NSW labor thieves that tried to do a midnight raid on selling the electricity assets for a song {perhaps to their mates}, & when caught out they couldn’t shred the documents fast enough?
Who are the red neck crooks now dear?  All of Australia’s money has been spent, now what? Hold hands and sing “kookaburra sits in the old gum tree’”,or Ring-a-ring-o-roses”?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YI015f9l888&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l1Uq6AB_4hM&feature=related

Tom Chesson says:

11:29am | 04/04/11

ahh the delicious irony ... the greens do a mighty fine line in hypocrisy ... remember Brown and his band of merry galahs whinging about SLAPP lawsuits ... seems they are trying something similar to shut down a journo who wrote something they don’t agree ... too funny ... give it too them again and again Penbo ... I love watching brown and the greens getting all indignant when they are outted as the frauds they are ...

It is great watching how the greens react to being put under pressure ... usually Bob Brown has a dummy spit - his lips purse together and the look of sheer annoyance on his face that someone would dare question his authority is priceless ...

but at the end of the day trying to intimidate journos is a low act Mr Brown and I hope that Penbo and others finally start applying the blowtorch to the greens and their policies ... they are now in partnership with Gillard’s mob and have an enormous influence over our lives ... if our democracy is going to work then there needs to be ‘sunlight’ shone into the darkest orfices of the greens internal workings ...

The same goes for the Independents—- Mr Oakeshott needs to understand along with the power comes the scrutiny and his dummy spit on the weekend showed the measure of the man.
Wasn’t it you Mr Oakeshott who said we need to let the sunshine in? A bit of scrutiny and Mr Oakeshott goes down with sunstroke! As Fiona Nash put it so succinctly ‘toughen up Princess’

Don Duk says:

11:29am | 04/04/11

I would far rather be a ‘redneck’ than a ‘pink neck’ anyday . Besides , Aunt Paulie is a Nationalist , NOT a racist . Being a Nationanist is the far bigger sin , it would seem .

Pete from Hay says:

11:31am | 04/04/11

The Redneck idiots of Balmain who voted for a Green standing on a platform of anti-Israel…cripes

Molly Dooka says:

11:36am | 04/04/11

Nope John,
I’m talking about the lunatic fringe that showed up at the Abbott party who are part of the hating right.

Caitlin says:

11:39am | 04/04/11

Oh my goodness, people. You are arguing about semantics. The dictionary definition of “coalition” is “a combination or alliance, especially a temporary one between persons, factions, states, etc.” So yes, in that sense federal Labor is in a coalition with the Greens and independents. That would also be true of the Libs if Abbott had been able to persuade the Greens and independents to let him form a minority government. NEITHER major party had a majority. Technically, even with a majority in the Lower House, a party would be forming a “coalition” every time they formed a temporary alliance with minor parties and independents to get bills past the Upper House. But so what? The word “alliance” would do just as well and probably be less confusing for people. “Coalition” or not, the Labor-Green alliance is certainly quite different to a formal, permanent coalition like the Liberal and National parties. It’s not like the Greens have ministerial positions in Gillard’s government.

jf says:

12:50pm | 04/04/11

“She will give a face to the redneck idiots, which Australia needs to see!”

Perfect. That way it will become obvious that the ‘redneck idiots” are just as likely to support the policies of the ALP as they are to support the policies of the Liberal Party.

It is interesting though, to watch who Labor and Greens voters direct their preferences to or vote for when they don’t vote Labor. The reason: Pauline Hanson has more in common with The Greens than any other political party.

Dash says:

01:07pm | 04/04/11

What part of the word democracy don’t you understand comrade acotrel?

The Redman says:

02:41pm | 04/04/11

Democracy indeed is a wonderful thing, Dash. The Greens accumaled some 440,000 votes across the state. Pauline Hanson garnered about 74,000 deluded votes. Says it all really. If you really believe in democracy, then you’ll agree that far more people support the Greens than supports Pauline Hanson.

Arthur Chesrterfield-Evans says:

06:25pm | 06/04/11

If the Greens had preferenced Labor, they would have been condemned for it.  It is all very well to talk about what happens if preferences did this or that.  If they had preferenced Labor, they might have got a lot less primaries. That is probably why they did not. It is also possible to take a stand on principle against Labor. A lot of people did!

Against the Man says:

06:29am | 04/04/11

The ALP can’t even get the principle of a coalition right. Desperate times call for desperate measures I guess. Remember if you don’t like the Greens then don’t vote for Gilltard’s sellout party.

John A Neve says:

07:16am | 04/04/11

Atm,
To the best of my knowledge there are only two parties in a coalition. The National and Liberals, sadly both parties too weak to stand alone!

In case you don’t understand and you obviously don’t, Gilliard does not have a party. She is a member of the Labor party, don’t they teach you any thing at school AtM?

Joan says:

07:37am | 04/04/11

Yep…. Juliar, Greens , Independents a bunch of misfits….not fit to rule a fine counr\try such as Australia ...and they have proved this day after day since theJuliar - Bob Brown coaltion sign on . Six months on and Juliar turns nasty on Brown Greens… surprise, surprise namecaller backstabber Juliar of No Carbon Tax lies, true to form

TimB says:

08:18am | 04/04/11

It’s fun watching you struggle to make a point John A Neve.

Keep trying. Maybe you’ll get there one day.

Just so you know, Julia wouldn’t even be in government if Labor were standing alone. Watching you try and argue that they aren’t in a coalition with the Greens (not to mention a handful of self-absorbed independents) is just hilarious in the extreme.

Flexo says:

08:21am | 04/04/11

John A Neve, I’ve seen your responses to ATM, Dash, TimB etc and your childish answers betray you beyond anyone’s imagination. You lack any logic or evidance or understanding of politics.

If the ALP is so strong why does it need the Greens/Independents to form a coalition to govern? Why are Green agendas like carbon tax and gay marriage always in the news? Don’t get me wrong those are important issues but as anyone can see Gillard is pandering to Bob Brown and he is the one in control. She is now only ‘pretending’ to pick a fight with the Greens to boost her poll numbers. If she really had any conviction she would tell Bob to go fly a kite and leave her to run the country, her way! But Gillard is scared to rock the boat and she is willing to risk Australia’s future to stay in power.

Grow up John and accept reality and back up your statements.

Christian Real says:

08:29am | 04/04/11

Flexo
your comment to John Neve displays a lack of intelligence, It was a hung Parliament, even if the Liberals would have needed the Independents and Greens to form a minority Government.

John A Neve says:

08:33am | 04/04/11

Flexo,

I really cannot believe you have so much trouble reading!
You obviously have not read what I posted or maybe you lack understanding?

The other alternative, based on your post, is that you are in a state of confusion,  if this is the case?  Help is available you know.

John A Neve says:

08:45am | 04/04/11

TimB,
I am sorry for you. Your post shows your lack of knowledge of our political system.

I repeat there are only two parties in coalition, the Nationals and the Liberals. Waffle all you like Flexo, but them’s the facts.

Tubesteak says:

09:02am | 04/04/11

You’re all getting off-topic!

The real gem is that there’s a Press Council

I’ve heard, and watched, the National Press Club address but that’s as close as I’ve ever come to knowing that there was some sort of body or council that could keep these halfwits in check.

Can we report everything ever done by The Smelegraph, Today Tonight and A Current Affair to the Press Council?

Can we get them banned?

TimB says:

10:10am | 04/04/11

@ Christian Real

It is in fact your comment that shows a lack of intelligence & a failure of comprehension. Yes it is a hung parliament. No-one is arguing that: Except apparently for John A Neve.

Labor is not capable of governing in their own right. Therefore in order to do so they had to form a *coalition* with the Greens and/or Independents. Just because the Liberals would also have needed to do so does not change this fact.

So John A Neve, yes Labor *are* in a coalition. They would not be able to govern now otherwise. They *cannot* stand alone and THAT is a fact.
For you to deny this doesn’t just betray your lack of understanding re. our political system, it also shows you to be utterly ignorant.

Ceramic says:

10:24am | 04/04/11

I am enjoying the Mass Debate as to whether the new Coalition between the Green/Labor Party should indeed be referred to as a Coalition Green/Labor Party,they are in fact a Coalition,therefore they should referred to in that Manner as they have come together with such policies as destroying the Aust economy,Gay marriage and making an example of Israel for merely existing,it seems they have got it right as did the now defunct Labor party in Nsw

Flexo says:

10:49am | 04/04/11

@ Christian real - that was my point. John Neve stated the Libs were too weak to stand alone, well the hung Parliment came about because the ALP were too weak too form government by themselves. See my point.

@ John Neve - I think you need serious help. Calling me confused is a nice distraction from the fact that some of us have broken you down and you can’t deal with it. Keep up the rants and we’re just glad you’re bringing Labor down from the inside.

John A Neve says:

11:10am | 04/04/11

Flexo,

Sadly you are that biased, you are almost blind.  The fact is many in our community are sick of the major parties.

The parliament we currently have is the parliament the people voted for.
You can duck and weave as much as you like, two parties, Liberal and National, could not knock off one party, Labor.
In the negotiations that followed the Greens and Independents saw the
Labor party as the best option to further this country.
Cry all you like, it’s done Flexo,  your childish name calling impresses only fools like yourself.

John A Neve says:

11:14am | 04/04/11

TimB,

It is said it takes a fool to know one. So you could well be correct, but not in this case.
Labor is not part of a coalition, they are a minority government with Green and Independent support.
I am not going to call you names, cannot think of a suitable one. But you have a lot to learn.

TimB says:

12:56pm | 04/04/11

You’re playing semantic word games John A Neve and you know it.

It’s a coalition government. That’s what the support means. It’s exactly the same as when the Nationals give their support for the Liberals to form government. Minority Liberal government with National support. Only difference is the arrangement is in place & known about in advance.

As for you going on and on about “2 parties couldn’t knock off one”... Rubbish. You know full damn well that the Nats & Libs generally don’t contest the same electorates (WA excepted). However as usual, Labor survived and pulled in seats they only won thanks to Green preferences.

The 2 Labor/Greens candidates in one electorate vs *ONE* candidate from either the Liberals (in urban electorates) or Nationals (in regional electorates) is the true 2 vs 1 situation of Australian politics.

It takes the Labor & Greens together to match the LNP.

I wish the Lib/Nat Coalition would just officially merge into the LNP already like in QLD so we can finally put an end to the idiotic & ignorant arguments like the ones John A Neve comes out with.

Steve says:

01:01pm | 04/04/11

John A Neve. Who was it who said “It is better to keep quiet and give the impression of being a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt” Your posting at 7.16 am has weakened your credibility

Sam Clemens says:

01:14pm | 04/04/11

Steve @ 01:01pm - That was me.

John A Neve says:

02:21pm | 04/04/11

Steve,

Please explain?
You might know what you are talking about!  But I doubt any one else does.

TimB says:

02:35pm | 04/04/11

@ John A Neve, I know what Steve is talking about. It’s rather obvious to anyone with a skerrick of intelligence.

The fact that you apparently don’t know what he means seems to prove his point all the more.

The Badger says:

05:00pm | 04/04/11

John A Neve
These flat earth conservatives will nod their collective heads up and down at anything another flat earther says. It’s a sickness that goes along with being conservative.

Steve says:

05:10pm | 04/04/11

John A Neeve. It was the “Gillard doesn’t have a party she is a member of a party” It might have been the most puerile and irrelevant comment that I have ever seen on this site.  If you revert to such tactics you are screaming out “I,ve got nothing”

Thanks Sam You saved me from incorrectly crediting Churchill or someone similar.

Against the Man says:

05:46pm | 04/04/11

Quote John A Neve ‘Labor party as the best option to further this country’

Ok, Federal ALP has been around since ‘07, whats that 4 years? Okay name 8 significant achievements they have done (works out to 2 per year) as the best option political party. I mean we pay them a hefty wage and asking for 2 significant achievements per year isn’t much? Is it health care? Or asylum seeker issue? Or education? Or economic management so we pay less tax?

The challenge has been thrown down based on your statement! Is Johnny boy game? Or is he a coward like his idol Rudd? Or is he as credible as his hero Gilltard?

I doubt this loser can name 1 achievement let alone 8. But it is nice to watch you stew in your own juices. Like the ALP you represent incompetence and bull crap !

ps: This is your chance to shut me up John A Neve, you got what it takes buddy boy?

TimB says:

06:36pm | 04/04/11

Come on ATM, don’t be silly.

Everyone knows that Labor don’t actually *have* to achieve anything. They just have to *say* they will do things. That’s good enough for their zombie supporters.

Who needs results when you mean well?

Against the Man says:

08:34pm | 04/04/11

Good point TimB

I don’t expect an answer from John A Nervous, just BS and cowardly crap.

Hey at least we can refer to him as the nutless and pointless wonder HaHa!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Christian Real says:

07:13am | 05/04/11

John A Neve
Re your post
I agree with you John that Tim B does show a lack of knowledge of our political system in his posts.
I also agree with you John that there are only two political parties in Coalition, the Nationals and the Liberals.
It would be in fact more of an alliance that was formed between Labor, The Greens and the Independents.
It never was and never will be an ‘coalition’, such as the coalition formed between the Liberal and National parties.
And Tim B
The National and Liberal party would definately be incapable of forming or becoming Government in their own right, as individual parties,  that is why the formed a ‘Coalition’ between the two parties in the first place.

TimB says:

08:31am | 05/04/11

God in heaven Christian.

That’s your argument? ‘It’s not a coalition, it’s an alliance!’

There is no difference. My god, how can one person so horribly re-interpret facts to suit themselves?

The Labor party and the Greens cannot govern without each other. The Libs and Nats cannot govern without each other. Both sides are coalitions no matter WHAT name you use. It’s the *exact* same situation.

To argue otherwise just shows how ridiculously stupid and pedantic you are.

Julie says:

01:04pm | 09/04/11

long enough for them all to get a big fat pension I suspect and us taxpayers will continue working like drones

johnny boy says:

07:00am | 04/04/11

Such conservative views Chongy.not a ground breaking statement by any means. but seeing you have copped a kick in the nuts lately and are now a left lib we welcome into the party of the Great John Howard lol

TChong says:

07:42am | 04/04/11

Copped a kick in the coddles? Thanks for the sympathy John boy.
If only I ever voted Labor, than the kicks would be justified.
Lucky I have a cast iron Hector, left over from facing fast bowlers with hang overs.
A Lefty Lib? Might put me in the same faction as Fraser - a far more honorable and statesman like character , then what graces the Opposition benches theses days.

Phil says:

07:19am | 04/04/11

John I dont agree with you much, but I voted for Fred Nile, The Shooters, The Libs and a few others. I wanted to vote for Hanson but couldnt be f cked filling in that massive form below the line and wasnt sure how to properly do it.
John you are right, but by the greens not helping their coalition partners in Labor, they opened up the chance for Hanson, who I have missed. I dont agree with her stance on everything, but she would be great entertainment value if nothing else. This is in the same way I love hearing from Paul Keating occassionally.
Shooters and Fishers, and Fred Nile usually vote with the conservatives anyway.
By the way, Pembo didnt tell anyone how to vote, he just repeated what NSW Labor had been saying, mind you he could hardly be pro NSW Labor given the stuff he has written.

Rick says:

07:22am | 04/04/11

Good on you John for your comment.

There are many views within a society, and some big voices always start from small voices.  As you suggest, people must stop telling other people how to vote, and the journalists need to respect that too.

Michael says:

08:40am | 04/04/11

@Phil ‘I wanted to vote for Hanson but couldnt be f cked filling in that massive form below the line and wasnt sure how to properly do it.’

I hope your joking, I know it’s a big form, but the instructions are fairly straight forward.
I voted below the line specifically to put Hanson last. You can thank me NSW when she isn’t elected and this blustering by Penbo to cover his error can stop.
Preference swapping is in itself toxic, people should be taught how to vote.

john says:

10:22am | 04/04/11

@ Rick
“As you suggest, people must stop telling other people how to vote, and the journalists need to respect that too. “

Exactly, that’s the problem with some journalists. They don’t fully respect the facts because you can see their personal bias creep into their stories.

They should report on the facts, without their bias.

Damian Parkhill says:

11:10am | 04/04/11

For once John me and you are in agreement - Yes we are democracy and yes we are free to choose who we vote for!

And yes Pembo and labor just did try telling us who we should be supporting.

Knemon says:

07:58am | 04/04/11

...his articles wording also changed from one day to the next, why would he do that?

Dear Abbey says:

07:38am | 04/04/11

@Pers, so its Libs,Indep,Greens,Hanson then Labor,would you say this is the pecking order,or have I placed Labor to high

Phil says:

07:55am | 04/04/11

You forgot

written and endorsed by Sussex Street Sydney for the ALP

TimB says:

08:52am | 04/04/11

*sigh*

Perse, are you really incapable of seeing the difference between what Gillard has done and what Penbo has done?

Here we have a quibble over technical intepretations of what was meant. In the end the result is the same: The Green’s attitude towards preferences has led to the current situation.

On Julia’s side though we have a deliberate lie, crafted to steal an election. An example of absolute contempt for the voting public.

Get some perspective for gods sake.

The Original Oz says:

09:33am | 04/04/11

To add to TimB’s comments - Perse, dont forget the other Gillard lie about the never was, never will Timor processing/detention centre. Policy made up on the run with absolutely no consultation with East Timor about it - is she that arrogant that she expects East Timor to bow to her every whim ? If not then it was a deliberately crafted lie to quell community concerns over the influx of asylum seekers and give her a few more votes towards government. Even now she refuses to relinquish this fairy tale of an East Timor solution, regardless of E Timor’s absolute refusal of the proposal.

AdamC says:

09:41am | 04/04/11

Persephone, I agree that what Penbo wrote in his original article was an aggressive rendering of the facts. However, if his characterisation of the Greens’ preference decisions is accurate, it becomes essentially a technical argument. The Greens clearly stuffed this up, and are now - as is becoming their habit - ferociously attacking media critics. Greens supporters obviously have low expectations of their party. Who is taking responsibility for this?

And you should move on from this ridculous defence of Gillard’s carbon tax deception. Aren’t you embarrassed writing that rubbish? Just let it go!

AdamC says:

09:41am | 04/04/11

Persephone, I agree that what Penbo wrote in his original article was an aggressive rendering of the facts. However, if his characterisation of the Greens’ preference decisions is accurate, it becomes essentially a technical argument. The Greens clearly stuffed this up, and are now - as is becoming their habit - ferociously attacking media critics. Greens supporters obviously have low expectations of their party. Who is taking responsibility for this?

And you should move on from this ridculous defence of Gillard’s carbon tax deception. Aren’t you embarrassed writing that rubbish? Just let it go!

MarK says:

11:13am | 04/04/11

Oh boy this should be fun..

“Penbo:

so the correct thing to say was that the Greens failure to direct preferences meant that it was possible that some Green votes flowed to Hanson.”

I agree 100% ............  goddamit

“That’s the factual situation, and a perfectly reasonable argument - by avoiding their responsiblity to provide guidance to their voters means that some of their votes may flow through to Hanson.”

Yep totally agree…sob

“That’s not what you wrote. What you wrote was factually wrong.”

For the love all that is holy and good stop it. You are right…grrrrrrr

“As a journalist, you have a responsibility to provide facts to your readers. If you don’t - and we all accept that sometimes what we believe is a fact isn’t - when it’s pointed out to you that you’ve made a mistake, you treat your readers with the respect they deserve and correct the record.”

Hmmm. Yeh I guess. This is opinion though but the fact as he stated was wrong so yeh ok…......this is not as much fun as I thought bugger it

“Saying that you won’t do this unless you’re dragged there kicking and screaming by the press council makes you sound petulant.”

True. But it is a s funny as hell though eh

“This site has attacked Gillard long and hard for her ‘lie’ - a statement she made when she wasn’t (not being psychic) in full possession of the facts. She apologised for this.”

Well lets not go into this now. You were actually on a roll in my books so I will let this slide through to the keeper for now.

“You are now in full possession of the facts. You shouldn’t be ducking, weaving and prevaricating. You should be apologising. “

Hmmm. Well to be honest I think apology is a bit harsh. When I first read it On Friday (April Fools Day remember) I honestly thought Penbo had snuck that in there as a joke to stir the pot so to speak.

Obviously the bitch fight between Labor and the Greens had helped the Libs in some way, whether to win a seat/s or not is open to conjecture, but the premise was basically right.

Yes Penbo was wrong in absolute fact on the preference thing though.

But when you are dealing with people whose federal leader blamed coal miners for floods in Qld and attributed “good” election results to whale placenta in the Derwent then you really are allowed a bit of poetic licence yourself I reckon.

The anger over at Crikey was so cool too. Worth a trip to whatever the Press Council over I reckon just to see the drool running and spittle flying in that bastion of monotonous group think . Lol they were mad.

TQS says:

06:39pm | 04/04/11

I agree with Persephone. What’s the point in defending a demonstratable untruth?

No need to apologise though, just make the small correction. It wasn’t a preference direction/flow from The Greens that may see her elected, it was a failure of The Greens to direct preferences elsewhere that may see her win the last spot.

It’s a simply correction, and the underlying point stays the same. Even if The Greens culpability is smaller, it’s the same potential end result: Hanson in the LC for eight years.

persephone says:

08:16pm | 04/04/11

Dear Abby

um, sorry, can’t see what this has to do with anything I wrote.

You can put your preferences anyway you want, I don’t care.

I’m talking about Penbo’s inability to apologise for an error, not pushing a political line.

Phil

given that apparently Sussex St is the source of Penbo’s information, that’s just stupid.

I’m a proud Victorian, btw - never been to Sussex St, have no idea where it is, haven’t ever (to my knowledge) talked to anyone who works there.

And what has any of that to do anyway with whether or not Penbo ought to apologise?

TimB

right back at you.

anyone with a sense of perspective would understand there’s a world of difference between saying something which you later have to go back on because of changed circumstances and deliberately lying.

Original Oz

how was saying that East Timor was the preferred place for a regional processing centre a lie?

Even if ET rejects it, it was still the preferred location, so it’s still not a lie.

Adam C - and MarK -

as I have said on numerous occasions, I have little or no respect for the Greens (I think I’ve made it clear here before that I accept that politics is, like all human affairs, imperfect and thus a matter of compromises; the Greens don’t accept human imperfection and are thus unable to compromise).

I agree totally that they should have directed preferences. Whether or not their voters followed them was a decision for the voters to make.

It is a courtesy to provide, to people who want to vote for you, an indication of where you want your preferences to go.

Firstly, like it or not, ,many people don’t want to be bothered about going through 60-70 options and working out for themselves which ones they want where.

We shouldn’t condemn someone who shirks that task as lazy or unthinking; they know who they want to see elected, and are voting on the assumption that that person will be. If they’re not, often the voter genuinely doesn’t care who else gets up.

Secondly, as a political party or candidate, you’re in a far better position than the average voter to make judgment calls about other candidates. You have information that the general public simply doesn’t have.

I don’t agree with the decision of the Greens not to allocate preferences. After all, if individual voters don’t want to follow them, they don’t have to. (I often use HTVs as a guide - I know who I want in the top five or so, and a fair idea of which ones I want to put last, but when it comes to the fifty in the middle, I’d appreciate a bit of help).

So I don’t like the Greens, I think they should have shown a bit of decisiveness and allocated preferences, but I don’t support people saying that they preferenced someone they didn’t and then not apologising for that.

Penbo could have got away, originally, with saying that he made an honest mistake - he was just repeating what some naughty Labor people had told him and it was teh evil forces of Sussex St which drove him to it.

That would have been fine.

This refusal to apologise when he knows he’s wrong is simply silly.

(btw, recognise you guys are basically agreeing with me, not having a go, just expanding on my thoughts - for what they’re worth…)

TimB says:

09:16pm | 04/04/11

For the millionth time Perse: What changed circumstances?

What part of the new parliament *forces* Gillard to have a carbon tax? You still haven’t answered this question.

She doesn’t have to have legislate a carbon tax if she doesn’t want to.

persephone says:

06:49am | 05/04/11

TimB

so you want Gillard to break a bigger promise in order to keep a little promise.

She was always very clear, as was the Labor party, that action on climate change was imperative.

Like her, I’d prefer an ETS, but I’m not that fussed about a set carbon price in the meantime, because it’s the action that’s important.

The Liberals are the ones who broke the big promise here - they went to the election in 2007 promising an ETS and knifed their leader rather than deliver on that.

It would be OK if they were consistent, but they knifed the ETS on the basis that it was a great big new tax but have replaced it with something which will be even more expensive for the taxpayer.

If a price on carbon which causes flow on price rises for ordinary consumers is a ‘tax’ then taking money out of general revenue (taxes) is also a tax.

If theirs cost more than ours, then their tax is bigger than ours.

Tim, explain to me what changed circumstances led Abbott to walk away from the CPRS, an election commitment he had made before the 2007 election?

If you and the Liberals think that keeping her promise was so important, then I’m sure Julia would welcome the Liberals support in Parliament to deliver the ETS as originally promised.

Win win: your team keeps their promise and helps Julia keep hers.

TimB says:

08:47am | 05/04/11

Persephone her promise during the campaign was to try and build community consensus for an ETS, then re-examine the issue in 2012. She promised explicitly that she would not inflict this on the Australian people if they were not ready.

Nothing about the hung parliament prevented her from following through on that policy. Nothing. But she didn’t even try. She used the hung parliament to revert to plan A, the one she lied about, then she tried rto blame the Greens for it.

She either broke the promise because she wanted to, or because the Greens are calling the shots. Those are your only two options.
Now you’ve been avoiding this question for months, trying to spin your way into an explanation that either makes Julia look good or puts the blame on the Libs.

No more spin. No more avoidance. Answer the question. Did Julia deliberately choose to break her promise or are the Greens in control?

As for your attempt to put this on the Libs: The changing circumstances there was that people on the Lib side began to wake up to the AGW scam.
The Liberal MP’s started *listening* to their consituents (something Labor could stand to do more of), and realised that the majority did not want an ETS. So they did their job. They represented the views of the people. Malcom went against this and suffered for it & the leadership changed.

That’s a changing circumstance. What Julia had was merely an excuse to do what she intended to do anyway.
And I tell you this: Even if Julia had won outright, we’d still be having this carbon tax discussion. She would NOT have gone ahead with her original plan to build consensus. All of that, the declaration of no Carbon Tax, the plans for deferral- all designed to placate the electorate and stop votes hemmorahging to the Coalition.
She always intended to break her promise and no amount of spin from you will change that fact.

TimB says:

09:04am | 04/04/11

“And of course, neither have the ALP’s put Hanson below the Greens - if she gets up, it’ll be on the ALP’s failure to preference the Greens.”

...But not the Greens failure to preference the ALP, is that right? It’s entirely the ALP’s fault?

Sorry, but both parties are culpable in this. That’s Penbo’s point. The Green actions have equated the ALP with Pauline Hanson. You cannot escape that fact.

And actually I’m prepared to lay the lion’s share of the blame at the Greens feet. As I understand it, the ALP were willing to make a preference deal, but ALP party rules require reciprocation in any such deal. It was the Greens who were unwilling to co-operate.

So in an attempt to hold themselves up as a bastion of purity, they have quite potentially handed a senate spot to Hanson. How is that for irony?

Time for the Greens to start taking responsibility for their own decisions instead of crying foul when everything backfires on them. (Yes that goes for your idiotic anti-Israel stance too).

Helen says:

10:18am | 04/04/11

Jeremy, maybe Penbo can be believed if he’s reading a prepared piece, but not when talking off the cuff? (Now where did I hear that before!)

Reg says:

09:38am | 04/04/11

So the Greens are having another cry/whinge about things… gasp!

The less we speak about this self-absorbed party, and their blowhard leader, the better.

bobw says:

11:18am | 04/04/11

Glen:  ” ... against free press.  Somebody has to take a stand ... “

Too right, Glen.  The freedom of the press to privilege an agenda over basic accuracy - now there’s one worth manning the barricades for.

Caitlin says:

11:44am | 04/04/11

Free press in Australia means that everyone is entitled to hold and express their own opinion. It does not mean they are entitled to their own facts. There is a world of difference between what Penbo wrote - that the Greens preferenced Hanson - and the reality - that they preferenced no one and this might have inadvertently helped Hanson.

W.H says:

05:37pm | 04/04/11

Refering to the greens as slimy is probably a bit far, however we must remeber its the people that voted for dear P.H not the Greens Party, in fact i can’t think of any reason a Green would preferance someone who is the exact opposite of what the greens stand for. Penbo got it wrong and obviously has it in for the Greens…. great unbiassed reporting. We might as well just all go and read the Australian.

Tubesteak says:

08:59am | 04/04/11

Majority of halfwits, obviously, and the perfect example of why democracy is fundamentally flawed.

Seano says:

09:32am | 04/04/11

She might sneak in on a tiny number of preferences because Labor and the Greens basically wasted theirs. She is not speaking for anything like a majority. She is speaking for some a tiny minority of loud, dumb bigots.

Joseph says:

09:59am | 04/04/11

latte hater

Warren says:

10:00am | 04/04/11

Majority? What percentage did the “Voice of the people” get this time? Maybe 2% overall? Some majority.

Tom says:

11:43am | 04/04/11

Tubesteak, besides ad hominems are you capable of debating like an adult?

Rover of North Cooma says:

12:04pm | 04/04/11

It’ll serve Hanson right if she does get elected and actually has to do some work.

We all know that the only reason she stands for election after election is to get the taxpayer-funded Election Campaigns Fund, which pays candidates which attract four per cent or more of the primary vote.

Paul says:

12:24pm | 04/04/11

There is only one reason that Pauline ran for election, David Oldfield! They are mates again and he let her in on the scam- massive pension. Oldfield once said or intimated that this was his reason for running. He did nothing for years and got a huge swag of bucks. To all of you blustering windbags who think she will do an iota of work, think again. There may be a few bits of populist window dressing (remember the “print more money” economics), but that is all you will get. Frankly, that is all you deserve!

Ruby says:

06:38pm | 04/04/11

How do you know the 15% who voted for them haven’t considered/scrutinised their policies? Just because you don’t agree with their policies (if you have indeed read them, instead of just going on News Ltd anti-greens propaganda) does not mean they don’t ‘meld with society at large’, or that people who do agree with their policies are ignorant or only focusing on one issue.

I voted for them after reading all of their policies carefully, and I don’t think anything in there is extreme at all, in fact, I strongly agree with most of it. I don’t consider myself to have radical political views. I find it strange that in the Australian media that anything even slightly left of centre is considered ‘radical’, ‘extreme’ or ‘communist’. Most of my friends vote for the Greens, and have also read their policies. I consider them all to be highly educated and informed people, not the rabid lunatics that the Greens are made out to be in the incredibly biased Australian media.

I think it is important that parties like the Greens have a say in Parliament so that there is a balanced debate, as the other two major parties are well and truly to the right of the political spectrum, which like it or not, is not representative of all Australian views. I accept that people like you have different political opinions to me, and you should too, because this is never going to change. I don’t accept your sweeping and unfair generalisations about people like myself however. I think you should rethink that before deciding to say it again.

Jeremy says:

08:22am | 04/04/11

What “stand”? “We will tell untruths and not retract them”? “We will fight for our right to mislead our readers”?

The Original Oz says:

09:37am | 04/04/11

@ Jeremy - that sounds like the Gillard/Labor Handbook, with just minor editing

“We will tell untruths and not retract them (instead we will ‘walk away’)” “We will fight for our right to mislead the electorate”?

jf says:

01:16pm | 04/04/11

Because only a party has the necessary scale to manage “immigration, get people working, clean stuff up including crime”.

I don’t agree with anything that either major party stands for but I sure as hell won’t waste my vote on some egotistical grand-stander (aka independent/minor party).

Knemon says:

12:00pm | 04/04/11

@ MarK - Don’t do a George W Bush and choke on your poprcorn, do you add jelly to your sandwiches?

You keep referring to crikey kiddies, excuse my ignorance - but what are crikey kiddies?

Good to see you’re getting over your MC accident, Your posts have been sorely missed, if only for the humour, Cheers,

MarK says:

12:42pm | 04/04/11

Nah no jelly.

It is spaketh in the scriptures that on the 8th day God made Peanut Butter (both kinds) and decreed it should be spread on bread, toast or other wheat based product and consumed in isolation. So endeth the lesson.

From the dictionary according to MarK.

Crikey Kiddies (adj.)

1. Left wing drop kicks with a prevalence for group think that worship at the alter of Sear’s et al. Totally lacking in humour and interest outside of the mentality that they are Right goddamit

2. Those closely related to hangers on of the religion of John Birmingham and associated blogs

3. Slavishly believers in AGW and fervent believers in an oncoming apocalypse they hope occurs so they can say I told you so

4. See also hypocritical dimwit.

If you are unsure of the genus when you encounter them in the wild they can be found by using the following pressure points.

1. Order a coffee. Not a latte. The ones that sneer are CK’s

2. Say you like Andrew Bolt ....loudly. The ones that attempt to glass you while calling you a fascist rascist violent and dangerous hatemonger are CK’s

3. Hold up a sign equating Jews and Israel with Nazism - the ones that applaud are CK’s.

4. Stand in the vicinity of a sign stating Gillard is Brown’s Bitch and the ones that abuse you for crudeness, sexism and violence are CK’s

5. Watch people break the law because of political beliefs but then run to the authorities and demand protection or justice from the law because of perceived smeers against their own beliefs. Those are CK’s

Knemon says:

12:56pm | 04/04/11

Thanks MarK - I now know

I do like your style even if I don’t always agree with your political comments - Cheers.

Knemon says:

09:35am | 04/04/11

@ Paul - Eric Abetz is NOT a Green nor is he a socialist!!

Ruby says:

06:59pm | 04/04/11

Exactly…and I think it very unlikely that a Greens voter would preference Hanson.

Caitlin says:

11:48am | 04/04/11

Actually, the Greens do have policies on population. http://greens.org.au/policies/environment/population

JohnB says:

02:17pm | 04/04/11

That’s hilarious Caitlin! They presently have the reigns and if they’re not screaming from the roof tops now to reduce population, they’re never going to. Instead they’re dithering with other useless stuff.

JohnB says:

02:24pm | 04/04/11

I went and had a look Caitlin. It’s worse than I thought.

“Australia has an obligation to accept humanitarian migration including that resulting from climate change” ..........

Do the Greens recognise there are 90 million EXTRA people on the planet EVERY YEAR? How will taking any number make the slightest bit of difference? Their web site should be viewed by all so no intelligent person ever votes for them ever again.

Joel B1 says:

09:07am | 04/04/11

Re that doc title, I think it means just what it says.

Prior to the last Tassie state election those nice not-littering types Greens put up plenty of sticker around here saying “A vote for the Liberals is a vote for a hung parliament”. Meaning, I presume that it was a bad thing.

Funny though, they now have changed their collective mind on that and are lovn’ having not one but two government ministerial positions and the associated perks.

They still reckon they’re in opposition but, only a Green mind can be in power and in opposition at the same time…

Babs of Sydney says:

09:45am | 04/04/11

“take the high morla ground” - That’s the latest coffee all the Greens voters prefer isn’t it?

Rover of North Cooma says:

03:14pm | 04/04/11

Actually, Donald, keeping chooks in the backyard has become very fashionable with inner city types.

Steve says:

01:09pm | 04/04/11

Senator Hanson Young is in the Australian Senate. Pauline Hanson may be elected to the NSW Legislative Council. Politics 101.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

04:26pm | 04/04/11

Sarah Hanson Young is not some loony, she simply believes in universal human rights and if you got into trouble moron you would prefer her on your side to the dingbat Hanson.

The way you right wing nutjobs carry on anyone would think Sarah suggested sacrificing your first born.

TQS says:

06:46pm | 04/04/11

No Marilyn, Sarah Hanson Young is just another contemptible red-Green.

It will be hilarious when she and Lee Rhiannon roll Bob Brown and Christine Milne after July 1st.

Vale the green-Greens, and welcome the red-Green ascendancy. It will be much like the Nuclear Disarmament Party after it was also taken over by Communists. The Greens will shrink into the oblivion of the 0.25% Socialist Alliance vote.

Knemon says:

01:27pm | 04/04/11

Richard @ 08:39am. I’m surprised that you follow Greens on twatter, each to their own I suppose.

“expose the Greens for the extremist radical scum that they really are” - Comments like this wont help your cause Richard, who are you trying to scare?

I’m also surprised that you have been sucked in by our PM’s latest slur against the Greens, I thought you were smarter than that Richard…Julia needs the Greens otherwise she is kaput.

TQS says:

08:36pm | 04/04/11

Hanson has never proposed a boycott and sanctions on a foreign country to further the agenda of terrorist groups hell-bent on genocide.

Green Princess says:

03:38pm | 04/04/11

Funny one Boo Frickin’ Hoo! - the only people on here that seem to be whining like a bunch of spoiled school girls are the conservatives.

Pamela says:

10:29am | 04/04/11

Don’t worry Drew, it is completely clear that this is right-wing commentary for right-wing simplists who can’t step out of their right-wing world for one minute and see that they might not have the answers.  Journalism?  Ha!  This is just a form to belittle people who hold views that are not conservative because they are scared of free-thought.  Eat your weetbix and vote Liberal because they are the only people who know what is good for you.  Can you think for yourselves robots??

Anthony says:

10:38am | 04/04/11

Not extreme just warm and fuzzy. Cute perhaps.

Gordo says:

11:29am | 04/04/11

Look at all Green Policies Drew and then come back.
Your ideas may change.
What is it with Greenies and the moral high ground?

John A Neve says:

10:09am | 04/04/11

Seano,

Just think, if Pauline gets up, there are a lot pf people, some even your mates, who voted for her.
Fell a little lonely do you?

Seano says:

11:19am | 04/04/11

?

I doubt anyone I know or respect voted for her John. I certainly wont be forgiving the Greens if she gets in.

Knemon says:

12:46pm | 04/04/11

Yes Dave - “indigenous Australians have got it easy” - that would be one of her better calls! I used to pray at night that Pauline would look in the mirror one morning and see ‘Truganini’ looking back at her, she would then find out how easy they have it - NOT.

GB says:

02:55pm | 04/04/11

You’re seriously trying to play the race card after the Israel BDS disgrace? You people are f’n delusional.

TM says:

12:42pm | 04/04/11

Oh, we have a bruised watermelon. Talk about delusional!

bobw says:

01:01pm | 04/04/11

@TM:

“Oh, we have a bruised watermelon.” - Oh, so?  Please explain.

“Talk about delusional!” - In what connection?

Zac says:

11:31am | 04/04/11

Other than the swearing I fully agree with you. I have had enough with the WaterMelons. We humans and nature is better off with out the Reds.

Knemon says:

04:27pm | 04/04/11

Actually Zac - Planet Earth would be better off without humans!!

Zac says:

06:00pm | 04/04/11

Knemon,

It’s like the two MD’s who claimed their business would have been great if it was not for the clients. Try putting your gaia fanaticism in perspective. Other than some Canberraistans (paid protestors, activists and academic industry) nobody is mad about Gaia. Even I will be mad about Gaia if I am paid a million dollars like Garnaut and Timmy.

james milton says:

11:53am | 04/04/11

The second in command bully?

That would be Julia Gillard.

peter warrington says:

12:55pm | 04/04/11

bob didn’t go federal until the mid-90s.

Me says:

04:49pm | 04/04/11

Excellent point.

Warren says:

01:31pm | 04/04/11

Lee Rhiannon is a loon, but attacking Israel’s policies is not necessarily anti-semitic.

james milton says:

04:10pm | 04/04/11

Anti-Zionism is just a soft way of saying Anti-Semitism.

Hamish says:

04:20pm | 04/04/11

True james, in theory one could be anti-Israel but not anti-Semitic. However, in practice they’re basically synonyms.

Warren says:

06:28pm | 04/04/11

In theory Hamish? So any and all criticism of Israeli policies is anti-semitic? Sounds like a very silly argument to me.

Damian Parkhill says:

05:58pm | 04/04/11

Funny, but those that ticked the box for Hanson still did so of their own free will - if anything preference swapping is the true distortion here, after all - what is democratic about one party (labor) trying to block a person (or a party) from being elected?

Warren says:

12:57pm | 04/04/11

I would suggest that if both the main parties took the issue of the environment seriously there would be no need for the Greens. They don’t. Increasingly more and more people are concerned about environmental issues, and however successful the “AGW is a socialist conspiracy” advocates are, you can only ignore the science for so long.

TM says:

12:38pm | 04/04/11

Because they know we would sell Tasmania and the Greens to China.

The Chinese would force the greenies to build the Franklin Dam, Bob could be the project manager. Snigger!

James Hunter says:

12:50pm | 04/04/11

You mean the Greens would end up being good for something ????

The Redman says:

02:46pm | 04/04/11

You are merely displaying your complete ignorance, TM. If you knew anything about anything, which you obviously don’t, then you’d know that the Greens are the most vocal critic of China’s human rights record, and make frequent (and to my mind uninformed) attacks on that country. Do five minutes of research and you’ll soon see how stupid your comment was.

Van Diemonian says:

04:33pm | 04/04/11

James Hunter @ 12:20pm “Please why can’t the Greens all just go live in Tasmania?”

Can we do a deal James - for every Green you give us we give you one bogan redneck in return, fair swap I’d say.

Daniel says:

01:11pm | 04/04/11

The Greens had nothing to do with Hanson last week and her position in the upper house.

Disgusted says:

03:45pm | 04/04/11

Sorry Roden, The lowest act was the overwhelming number of vote forms with NO VOTE on them. Just plain pieces of paper rammed into the voting boxes. How do I know??? I was working at a poling place all day that day

Helen says:

10:56am | 05/04/11

Please try to keep up. We’re not saying Penbo can’t write about the Greens. We’re pointing out that he published an untruth and is obdurately sticking by it. Why won’t Penbo be accountable?

bobw says:

01:54pm | 04/04/11

Good post, AMK.  I too would appreciate hearing from Mark Kenny on this.  I doubt he reworded his piece purely “to avoid an ongoing stoush”, as Penberthy claims.  And that the post-publication edits to Kenny’s piece are neither flagged nor explained is inexplicable, particularly given that there are comments referring to the article in its original form.

Peter says:

05:54am | 05/04/11

Well done Jean. For years I have been advocating the sentiments that you have expressed.
I hate the slimy back-room deals negotiated by the major Parties.
In a democracy it is my right to distribute preferences as I see fit, not as I am told to by a particular Party.
I took great pleasure in filling out the Legislative Council ballot paper below the line.
It took me around half an hour to fill in all 231 squares, but it was worth it so that I could put the Greens last.
Half an hour of my time every four years is a small price to pay for REAL DEMOCRACY!

Ryan says:

04:58pm | 04/04/11

@john Ryan: but our prime minister does it, why shouldn’t the newspapers? I mean our kids should do it too since the prime minister sees fit to outright lie to us.

TQS says:

06:33pm | 04/04/11

As a member of that vile and abhorrent fringe party, do you support their economic war against Israel?

Do you support the destruction of the Israeli economy? Do you desire Israel to be unable to fund the IDF? Do you desire the defeat of Israel to the forces of Hamas & Hezbollah? Do you desire a second holocaust that will occur if those genocidal Islamist forces defeat the Jewish state?

If not, then why haven’t you resigned your Greens membership in protest at the unanimous NSW Greens state council decision to effect the above with a boycott, divestment and sanctions program against Israel?

The only war being waged is The Greens one against Israel as the economic wing of an ongoing Islamist military campaign. You ought to be ashamed.

Ruby says:

06:49pm | 04/04/11

David Penberthy has definitely lost my respect after this petty article. Certainly no longer considered to be a serious journalist.

GB says:

04:14pm | 04/04/11

” Both major parties adopted her disgusting refugee policies and have gone even further to the right than she is.”

No problem with boycotting and smearing anything Israeli though right Maz?

TimB says:

06:25pm | 04/04/11

You first Marilyn.

The next time I see you admit you are wrong in regards to *anything* (and you quite frequently are) will be the first.

bobw says:

04:01pm | 04/04/11

@Disenchantress:  You seem to have missed the point.  The complaint is not about criticism or even “bias”, but rather straight-out factual error - a demonstrable misrepresentation of the truth.

You can’t expect the Greens to “defend their own actions” when the actions being referred to were never even taken.

Marilyn Shepherd says:

04:24pm | 04/04/11

He’s not showing an ounce of gumption, he is maintaining a silly lie with an arrogant and silly lie.

digby says:

01:01pm | 05/04/11

how is it possible for anyone to ‘defend their own actions’ if the media (state-owned or otherwise) is free to publish lies?

Dr Dog says:

04:49pm | 04/04/11

Absolutely Paddy, you are entitled to the more direct ‘racist’ or more simple and accurate ‘twit’ in describing your views.

Zac says:

06:09pm | 04/04/11

Paddy,

What you are on is pure common sense but the problem is, power has no such sense. When it comes to policies Greens doesn’t have the interest of Australia in their hearts. Very sad but true.

Zac says:

06:09pm | 04/04/11

Paddy,

What you are on is pure common sense but the problem is, power has no such sense. When it comes to policies Greens doesn’t have the interest of Australia in their hearts. Very sad but true.

Knemon says:

08:58pm | 04/04/11

Zac -  “When it comes to policies Greens doesn’t have the interest of Australia in their hearts. Very sad but true”

Tell me Zac - what do you honestly think is in a Green heart? Is it similar to an ALP or LNP heart Zac?

What drives Green policy Zac? - What’s in it for the Greens?

Very sad but true my arse.

Ziff says:

07:59pm | 04/04/11

The underlying point is simply this.

The Punch is unreliable as a source.

Full

Stop.

michael j says:

07:48pm | 04/04/11

is there a suggestion in there that too much cheap wine was involved ,and therefore no apology is needed ?

Helen says:

11:01am | 05/04/11

Comparing Hanson to Hypatia? That’s really a new low.
That sound you hear is Hypatia spinning in her grave.

TQS says:

08:11pm | 04/04/11

But instead they pandered to Hamas & Hezbollah.

At least they are in the distinct, and soon to be diminishing, minority.

digby says:

12:56pm | 05/04/11

yeah, who needs civilization when you’ve got indignation?

Pat says:

06:06am | 05/04/11

I have to totally agree with you, Margaret and with cybacaT below.