Prev
Next

Sunday morning slugfest

Bronwyn Bishop

by Bronwyn Bishop

23 Feb 05:40am

Must Reads

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses - this is a caption

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

16

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this - this is a caption

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

51

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

123

Filed under: Abc, Insiders, Media, Politics, The Australian

72 comments

Sunday morning television can be a riot of fun.

A laugh a minute on Meet the Press

First we had Ross Garnaut on Meet the Press confirming that his modelling for climate change predictions was done on the balance of probabilities, surely when one is giving support to the ETS, the big tax on everything, it should be on the basis of beyond reasonable doubt. But with all the fudged modelling of the IPCC, I suppose we shouldn’t be surprised, just alarmed.

Next we had the spectacle of David Marr – who writes for Fairfax beating up on Piers Akerman who writes for News Limited because Marr did not like the way ‘the Australian’ reports the news.

How’s this for a quote from a reporter from a competing newspaper (Marr from the Sydney Morning Herald) “Here is a newspaper (the Australian) that’s been around now for 30 something years. It’s still not making money. The reason I think is because of its other role, which is this heavy lifting that it does on ideological issues and heavy lifting that it does on the commercial issues of News Limited. And I think we readers of ‘the Australian’, read it with a grain of salt, a grain of salt all the time. The climate change debate was a very good example of that.”

That’s a bit rich coming from David Marr on the publicly funded ABC.

There did seem to be some paranoia in the air about free to air T.V versus pay T.V versus the publicly funded ABC with Minister Conroy being totally unable to justify the $250 million gift to free T.V, nor the anticipated change to the anti siphoning regulations to assist pay T.V nor the favourable funding to the ABC to allow it to run all day news to compete with Foxtel.

It was a hell of a morning!

But we can be grateful to the Australian for reporting on Mr Rudd’s performance on the ABC’s Q&A.

Unlike the usual format with a panel of personalities, this one was just the PM alone, with some 200 young Australians and the result was I’m sure a resolution by Mr Rudd never to do that again. Kids won – PM lost.

The Australian was kind enough to contrast Mr Rudd’s answers to those astute young people with researched answers. The roll out of computers to schools was one such comparison.

Original 2007 election commitment was for every young person at secondary school to have a computer and the program to be rolled out in four years, that is 2011. Mr Rudd’s answer “we would have a computer for every young person in secondary school……by, I seem to recall, 2013 or thereabouts.” He added “we are on track to doing that. We have about 260,000 computers out there in schools now ……….can I just say that is fact.”

‘The Australian’ points out that according to Senate Estimates, 154,000 of the one million promised laptops are in operation! No wonder he hoped 2013 was the right answer. And on the article went.

But back to Sunday morning T.V and the Insiders.

In that section where each panellist is asked for a final observation, this was Mr Marr’s.

“I’m very worried that people may now begin praying to Mary McKillop for cures, because apart from any doubts about whether or not saints exist, university– controlled tests in the USA say that medical outcomes are slightly worse for those who pray for cures.”

Now who’s sick?

Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day

Get The Punch on Facebook

Most commented

431Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
336Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.

72 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Fexreoclold says:

      08:48am | 15/09/10

      <a >download   rounds movie complete movie kit</a> <a >download appaloosa other movies are also available</a> . Download Movie <a >download up movie just after release at home</a> <a >download untraceable movie an amazing quality</a> <a >download the informers movie the informers     movie download</a>
      Where to download high quality films with high speed?
      <a >download and watch mamma mia movie still pay for dvd rental</a>
      <a >download or watch       full movie online with dvd quality also for ipodpsp</a>
      <a >download full movie watch full length movie streaming</a>
      <a >download and watch quantum of solace movie still pay for dvd rental</a>
      <a >where can one download my sisters keeper movie the suggestions</a>

      Reply

    • Elizabeth says:

      11:55pm | 23/02/10

      Do you want to work till your 70 years old? Do you drink or smoke? If so you will be slugged under Abbott, 10 per cent increase in alcohol excise to raise $4.2 billion in the first year, and a 20 per cent increase in tobacco excise (about $1.44 on a packet of 25 cigarettes) to raise another $7.7 billion.
      If your on welfare Mr Abbott advocated all welfare-dependent families with children should have half their income held back for food and essentials
      Disabilty pensioners with psychological/psychiatric and musculo/skeleton categories wil be forced to undergo annual medical reassessments and sit two interviews a year “to encourage them into employment”.
      If your in any of those catagories a vote for The Liberals is insanity. To lift the retirement age again is just ridiculous. I feel we will hear more of this from groups around Australia.

      Reply

    • David C says:

      09:20am | 24/02/10

      Call me insane then

    • LP says:

      06:46pm | 23/02/10

      Bronwyn, do you have car insurance? home insurance?

      Surely it isn’t ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that something bad would happen to either your house/car, but what would happen to you personally/financially/etc.. if it did? Now think of that on an international scale and tell me why we shouldn’t have insurance?

      Reply

    • Dingo says:

      06:19pm | 23/02/10

      I just love “the science is settled” line.

      Translation: we cannot defend our assumptions and modeling based on scientific methods and the actual data of the last ten years does not support any of the predictions made ten years ago.

      So if you want to discuss or debate the science, I’ll put my figures in my ears and yell lalalalalala David Marr style. Or do an Al Gore and simply refuse to be in the same room with anyone who has any of those pesky facts that are accumulating to prove AGW is non-scientific nonsense.

      Reply

    • Dingo says:

      04:30pm | 24/02/10

      Alice, you’re correct about scientific method being to make a hypothesis and then by experimentation attempt to “prove” the null hypothesis.  This methodology has never being applied to the link between CO2 in the atmosphere and global temperature. The entire argument is based on modeling and extrapolating data that was questionable data in the first place.

      Even the use of the term “green house” is misguided. The temperature in a green house rises because of still air absorbing radiant heat. The increase in CO2 which enables the plants to thrive is thought to be a by-product of the increase in temperature, not the other way around. 

      There is no credible science which links CO2 emissions to increased temp. There is empirical evidence over hundreds of years that increases in global temp have been followed by increases in CO2 in the atmosphere (not the other way round) and global temp have fallen over the last decade, hence the change from “global warming” to “climate change.”

      I can’t speak for other people’s motives. I know Al Gore is not a scientist and he has made millions from spruiking global warming. The leaked emails from climate change scientists in England may also help you to understand their motives.

    • Alice says:

      07:45pm | 23/02/10

      Dingo,

      Scientists thrive on debate. Science is all about attempting to disprove hypotheses. Only those hypotheses that survive detailed critical analysis in credible peer reviewed journals stand the test of time. The fact of climate change has patently withstood that test. For decades.

      But that aside, please enlighten me: why would thousands of scientists from all over the globe conspire together to hoodwink the public? What is the motive?

    • eye4aneye says:

      05:57pm | 23/02/10

      Wow this one went straight into a left/right, liberal/labor slanging match - not even a pretense of debate.

      Reply

    • Lloyd says:

      03:37pm | 23/02/10

      Poor Bronwyn. She does not realise that the balance of probabilities indicates climate change is beyond reasonable doubt. She should try and read the evidence and then draw her conclusion.

      Good scientists are virtually obliged to say that any observation has some degree of doubt. Only the irresponsible scientists and science celebrities, supported fincially by vested interests are 100% sure climate chnage is not happening

      Reply

    • David C says:

      04:00pm | 23/02/10

      But this is not the issue of debate, when we hear the science is settled then yes it is - climate change is happening, man is probably involved.
      The debate and where science is at odds with itself is how much will it be and what will be the impacts. This gives rise to the debate of what is an appropriate response and what is the cost benefit.

    • E says:

      12:09pm | 23/02/10

      Which blog does David Marr write?

      Reply

    • The Dove says:

      11:40am | 23/02/10

      Bronwyn your article clearly demonstrates how the LNP have jumped into bed with Murdoch and are championing the News Limited agenda. Can you praise The Australian and Foxtel any more?.A $250 million gift?. I seem to remember Howard doing the same ($260million) with regional television in 2000. And all of this only stems post Abbott meeting personally with Rupert Murdoch last weekend.Do you think people are that stupid.

      Sceanario: Tony meets with Rupert. Rupert says I want this blocked. Tony says I will help you if you help me.Rupert says how are you going to help me? Tony says I will block it and tell the public its a “Great big new tax…. oh wait I am already running that lie… I will say it looks like a bribe and a waste of money! Rupert says congratulations you will now have all the resources of News Limited supporting you. Bronwyn Bronwyn do you really think that the Australian public are that ignorant. It must be hard living without a conscience, but then again ideology can sometimes blind,some more than others. P.S I can not wait for the revamped ABC news service,balance my little dinosaur balance.

      Reply

    • Russ says:

      01:14pm | 23/02/10

      And if we want to talk seriously about governments giving largesse to businesses, can we recall what happened when then-minister for communications Richard Alston decided we should benefit from digital television?  All of the available spectrum was GIVEN to the free-to-air broadcasters, with the insistence that spare spectrum had to be used for High Definition (read spectrum-wasting) broadcasting.  No room for any new operators.  None of the commercial channels have returned the unused spectrum, even though they have not (and will not) introduce HD.  But that was based on evidence beyond reasonable doubt, and it was not a gift/bribe.

    • Evan Findlay says:

      10:34am | 23/02/10

      You know Bronwyn it was only a couple of years ago that I had thought you had retired or died but I had been informed by a work colleague that you had been relegated to the back bench after your “Kerosene bath” affair and had languished there ever since.  I mean Howard kept you in that portfolio till after the election even though it was common knowledge that you failed to act on information given to you about this practice. But you never were sacked or resigned. I love a woman who stands on principle even though it lacks moral or ethical fibre. But hey, your still standing and that’s the main thing.

      The last known dinosaur. Well…. except for Wilson Tuckey of course and Phillip Ruddock. Weren’t they saying that you were going to be Prime Minister one day?The first female Prime Minister! It’s not too late! All you have to do is get the numbers to roll Mr Abbott and come up with some core/non core policies. But you better hurry though because I hear from some of those in the know, and by those in the know I mean those who regularly contribute to this forum, that Julia Gillard is angling to be top dog.

      In the words of Neil Young, “It’s better to burn out than it is to rust”, and rust is what you have become. Rusted on to an era long past. What you saw as a guiding star turned out to be an oncoming train and since the “Kerosene bath” affair your stocks have plummeted. Your best, and I use that word loosely, is long gone and in the past five years you have contributed nothing to the betterment of Australia, and I dare say, neither to your electorate. Which begs the question why Mr Abbott dug up an old relic that is in the eyes of the electorate, antiquated, belonging to another era and lacking in any moral substance, and positioned you back onto the frontbench. The last thing this country needs is another politician striving for mediocrity.

      And surprise, surprise you are standing up for Piers Ackerman and the right wing aligned Australian tabloid. How predictable. Did Tony invite you to the lunch with Ruppy? Isn’t it funny how Mr Abbott the next day was attacking government ministers for spending time with media moguls! Do as I say and not as I do is how the saying goes….. I think.

      With a bit of luck Bronwyn, Ms Gillard might introduce the “My Aged Care” website and that might help with your impeding future. May I make a suggestion to you though, stay away from those that promote kerosene baths. There not all there cracked up to be.

      Reply

    • Simon C says:

      09:35am | 23/02/10

      And Brony is just so now…

      Reply

    • David C says:

      11:34am | 23/02/10

      Actually to be honest and to follow my previous post about Marr I would have to say she was so last century

    • Steve of Cornubia says:

      09:23am | 23/02/10

      I see that none of Krudd’s Komrades above chose to deny that Rudd agreed with Howard on the WMD issue, instead pretending the question was never posed and moving straight on into personal insults.

      Predictable, but still hilarious.

      Reply

    • Russ says:

      01:05pm | 23/02/10

      The government of the day provides the opposition with briefings from senior public servants.  Kevin Rudd made the statement he did based on the information provided to him by intelligence agencies hand-picked by Howard.  BUT that was not what Bronnie was on about.  She didn’t think someone like David Marr should pick on poor Piers Ackerman because he’s such a sensitive soul and has never dished it out to anyone.

    • John A Neve says:

      09:41am | 23/02/10

      Steve,
      What does it matter whether Rudd did, or did not agree?

      This whole article of Bronwyns is about the coalition making it’s decisions on a “basis of beyond reasonable doubt”.

      What Rudd does or doesn’t do is irrelevant.

      One can only assume you don’t have a valid argument?

    • David C says:

      09:08am | 23/02/10

      David Marr is so last decade.

      Reply

    • Dingo says:

      10:45am | 23/02/10

      So true. I don’t know if he is deliberately offensive for the impact, but he is such a pompous ass.

    • Russ says:

      08:05am | 23/02/10

      Your comments on climate change reflect the views of a lawyer (and I suspect not a very good one) rather than a scientist, stick to that Bronwyn.  It was George Pell who first told his flock not to rely on prayer as the only means of curing their illnesses, so I suggest you have a word with him on that topic.  As for The Australian, it is generally accepted as a right-wing flagship, nothing new there.  Finally while Mr Rudd has some weaknesses, he did not invent non-core promises, and has not been confronted with a minister who missed hundreds of millions of dollars being given to an administration with which we were at war.  Just go away.

      Reply

    • im says:

      11:22am | 23/02/10

      thats it play the man! sad right wing Australian left wing the age.

    • Kevin Rennie says:

      08:01am | 23/02/10

      Bronwyn

      One thing is beyond reasonable doubt. Very fewer of the climate sceptics seem to have read the Garnaut Report. The balance of probabilities is clearly weighted heavily on the side of action. http://tiny.cc/qE8bl 

      Tony Abbott hasn’t read any of the reports such as the UNFCCC’s, have you? It’s about risk management - we can’t risk the planet’s future. We can’t risk a return to Liberal minimalism on global warming.

      Reply

    • annie says:

      02:39pm | 23/02/10

      ian sand the world hasnt warmed for 10 years, the poles are in good shape the glaciers arnt melting, surface sea temeprature is dropping and the northern hemisphere is experiencing the coldest winter in 36 years. fear not its cyclic

    • iansand says:

      12:21pm | 23/02/10

      Annie.  If you are wrong and Garnaut is right.  What then?

      Commercial suicide may be the least of your problems.

    • annie says:

      11:20am | 23/02/10

      so we commit commercial suicide on the balance of probabilities and please dont quote the unfccc coz thats totally dispoven ideology or should i say religion.

    • iansand says:

      07:56am | 23/02/10

      The only way to prove AGW “beyond reasonable doubt” is to have a control.  That means a spare earth that did not have an industrial revolution, or a population explosion or large scale land clearing or a whole range of other things.  Does your fearless leader have one of those down the front of his budgie smugglers?  If you don’t have one available your comments are your usual ill informed nonsense.

      Reply

    • T.Chong says:

      07:49am | 23/02/10

      Sideshow Bronny wheeled out again. Gee Bronny your savage about Conroy and free to air Tv, not enough pandering to Fox? How dare Australia via the ABC have a dedicated news channel, when ” fair and balanced ” Fox exists to give wonderful insights via O’Reilly, Beck, Palin et al. ?
      Abbotts comment when found out to be hanging with Rupert? - “I hope they like me ”  Says it all .

      Reply

    • Jeff Mueller says:

      09:11am | 23/02/10

      The head moves from side to side, the mouth is open, and here am I without any ping-pong balls.

    • Aitch B says:

      07:47am | 23/02/10

      Just in case anybody’s forgotten, our esteemed current PM when in opposition also stated that there was no doubt that WMDs existed in Iraq and supported the government in its decision to go there.

      Those bagging Howard for that should also be bagging Rudd.

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      10:07am | 23/02/10

      Aitch B,

      I ask once again, what has Rudd’s views on WMD got to do with Bronwyns article?
      My comments are in direct response to her and what she has writen.,
      regarding the coalition’s decision making.

    • Aitch B says:

      09:49am | 23/02/10

      @John A Neve

      Simply responding to your comment (twice) about WMDs and “beyond reasonable doubt”, John. Am I not permitted to comment on comments made here? Am I not permitted to show any political proclivity as you unashamedly do? You have a bad night or something?

    • John A Neve says:

      08:34am | 23/02/10

      Aitch B,

      Your comments like those of WKH, have nothing to do with Bronwyn’s article. Bronwyn is asserting all the coalition’s decison are based on a
      “basis of beyond reasonable doubt”!!!

      Try addressing Bronwyn’s comment or do you learn all you anti Labor speeches of be heart. Think for your self, if you are capable?

    • KC says:

      07:04am | 23/02/10

      Oh dear Browyn, I believe this is the crux of the problem with the climate change debate.  It is such a complicated issue that even climate change experts can’t entirely agree amongst themselves and they may potentially get some parts of it wrong – it’s just the way science works, learning from mistakes (don’t tell me you’ve never made one!?)  That doesn’t mean they’re not on the right track. Unfortunately you seem to miss that point and I think it’s a crucial one.  Waiting until science proves ‘beyond reasonable doubt’ that we do actually have quite a serious problem could leave us way past the point of actually being able to do anything about it.  I think you have to acknowledge that there are some issues we are faced with these days, that are so complex, that it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for a community to reach a consensus on such a topics.  So, perhaps it would be useful and wise for us to speculate - ‘if we don’t act now, what’s the worst that could happen’.  So therefore, making a decision on the ‘balance of probabilities’ does not seem entirely unreasonable to me, in fact I think it’s our only option.

      As for Mr Marr’s comment about praying to saints, well again I think you’ve failed to see his point.  It wasn’t a sick comment, he was stating a fact and sometimes they’re unpalatable.  Yes I agree it would be a wonderful world if we could just say a prayer and see problems miraculously resolve themselves, and I’ll even concede that it’s nice sometimes for people to believe that this can happen if it gives them solace (as long as they don’t depend on prayer entirely and refuse medical intervention or whatever other rational alternative is available) but the evidence says that this just isn’t the case.  It’s not sick, just a shame and that’s the reality which we need to pay heed to.

      Reply

    • Not a holy joe says:

      07:28pm | 23/02/10

      David Marrs remark about praying to Saints was uncalled for and tawdry.  This is the same David Marr that calls for acceptance and tolerance sneering at the belief of one quarter of the Australian population because they have a belief he doesn’t share . A belief I also, incidentally don’t share, but I do not presume to sneer and ridicule people who hold different views to mine.  It was cheap and nasty and contrary to the accepting and tolerant Australia he, on the other hand espouses.

    • David C says:

      10:53am | 23/02/10

      Most people insure their homes for that very reason, ie the potenital risk argument, what are premiums these days $1000/ $2000 or so? I wonder how many people would still insure their homes if the annual premiuims were 10 or 20 times that amount?
      Risk management includes cost.

    • Dingo says:

      10:39am | 23/02/10

      KC, often elder people have had enough life experience to know that when someone says"It’s too complicated to explain but give me billions of dollars to fix the problem” it is not very wise to take your ” O.K… just in case” position.

      Perhaps if there were some older and wiser people in our current Government, with a few less celebrities parachuted into safe ALP seats, the nation wouldn’t be lurching from one expense mistake to the next.

    • John A Neve says:

      06:36am | 23/02/10

      Browyn, does this mean all the coalitions decisions were “beyond reasonable doubt”?

      There was no “doubt” about the WMD?
      No"doubt” that chlidren were thrown over board?

      Come on Brony, fair suck of the sav, not all Australians are idiots, only those that believe you.

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      02:50pm | 23/02/10

      IM,
      In that case you don’t accept what Bronwyn has said, do you?
      The coalition does not make all it’s decisions based on “beyond reasonable doubt” does it?
      So why bring this into the debate in the first place, just trying to get Brony off the hook, you good little follower you.

    • im says:

      02:34pm | 23/02/10

      vic the yanks went to war post sept 11 coz they really beleived in wmd. we went to war to support our big brother and protector the same is probably true of the brits. WMD were nothing at all to do with us going to Iraq. we would have gone under labor just as quickly. we just get told what they the pollys of all persuasions want us to know.

    • Vic says:

      12:34pm | 23/02/10

      Annie Iraq in my opinion and the opinion oif many others including The BritIsh was an illegal war. There were no chemical wepons. We helped destroy an ancient country and to me thats shameful. I feel Howard, Bush and Blaire should be tried as war criminals and it pains me to say that. Mr Howard had full knowledge of reports from secret service orgInizations and all we had was their word for it. Iraq is left with so much destruction and poverty for a war that should never have been and your right John A Neve it has nothing to do with this debate but I felt I should just add my opinion to this, sorry mate

    • John A Neve says:

      11:36am | 23/02/10

      Annie & IM,
      What has war, Iraq or Vietnam got to do with this article?
      Why cannot both of you stick to the issue at hand?

      Both of you seem to fit the, what ever Brony says must be true brigade,
      I say this “beyond reasonable doubt”.

    • im says:

      11:16am | 23/02/10

      your correct john not all australians are idiots thats why went went to iraq and vietnam to protect our future idiots who think the world is a warm and friendly place.

    • annie says:

      11:08am | 23/02/10

      we mostly went into Iraq to support our biggest and best friend and protector without whom we would be enslaved and speaking japanese. fact. you lot with tiny memories and little imagination on what the big bad world is really like should hold hand and sing kumbaya maybe that will protect you in the future from Indonesia or China.

    • WKH says:

      06:31am | 23/02/10

      Senator Conroy’s 250 million dollar gift (can I say bribe here? cause I know I can’t put it in capitols) to the tv stations is starting to pay off already as Krudd spends some cosy time on channel Tens “Good News Week”.  Something is starting to stink with this government.
      Conroy =  Con, Garrett/Tanner = Incompetent and Krudd = Fail

      Reply

    • John A Neve says:

      07:23am | 23/02/10

      WKH,

      Just what does your post have to do with Browyns article?
      Do you ever think for your self, or are you that bainwashed you just trot out the same old trpe?

    • Fog Badger says:

      06:25am | 23/02/10

      Regarding modelling. I’m sure lots of uncertainty was taken into account. It’s how the results are discussed. The 13% increase in emmissions with the liberal party’s scheme is the upper limit of a band of uncertainty, but that’s not politically convenient!

      Reply

    • Thank you says:

      08:05pm | 23/02/10

      Please read: http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/stats-pubs/downloads/trade_topics_december_quarter_2008.pdf

      Then I’d like you to tell me which sections of our income we can do without after we have priced ourselves out of the market to set an example to the world.

      There is urgency to stop production and use of fuels by pricing them to the point where no-one can afford to be productive, including Food.

      Where is the technology that can keep you all in work, with a roof over your heads and food and water on the table whilst we are dismantling the economy? We’re building Desalination plants that require large amounts of energy. We’re putting windmills up. We want to rid ourselves of farting horses and cows, where will that leave farmers and food production.

      We need to make changes but I have never, ever considered suicide. 

      Explain it to me.  What do we live on if we price evrything to the point where we can no longer sell it?

    • Alice says:

      06:45pm | 23/02/10

      Annie - your comment that “their [sic] is just as much science against significant man influnced [sic] global warming as for it” is false.

      More than 99% of peer reviewed scientific publications support anthropogenic climate change. Look it up.

      Are you a member of the flat earth society too?

    • annie says:

      02:30pm | 23/02/10

      alice why not just jump of a cliff coz somebody tells you the world will end tommorow. ps their is just as much science against significant man influnced global warming as for it. sorry but its true. polar ice increasing glacier not melting the antartic increased in size for the last ten years.

    • Alice says:

      12:58pm | 23/02/10

      Annie it’s not “ideology”. It’s that crazy world wide communist conspiracy otherwise known as “science”.

    • annie says:

      11:14am | 23/02/10

      yes fog thats against the 100000 plus jobs that will be lost and millions of export dollars that support our education and hospital systems for ideology thats unproven and will have nil effect on our or the worlds enviroment.

    • John A Neve says:

      05:44am | 23/02/10

      Is Bronwyn really telling us all the coalition governments decisions were made on the basis of “beyond reasonable doubt”?

      We went to war because the case for WMD, was beyond” reasonable doubt”?

      The fact that children were thrown overboard was “beyond reasonable doubt”?

      Come on Brony, fair suck of the sav, not all Australians are idiot, only the ones that believe your sick interpretation of the truth.

      Reply

    • annie says:

      02:27pm | 23/02/10

      if you think any government of australia goes to war in support of the yanks for anything other than the ultimate protection and freedom of this land your kidding. its nothing to do with wmd in iraq or support of nato in afghanistan or the threat of communism in vietnam. it’s our ultimate protection.

    • John A Neve says:

      12:09pm | 23/02/10

      Simon C,

      Relevance to this debate?

      So the coalition’s decision on this matter was “beyond reasonable doubt” was it?

    • SimonC says:

      11:46am | 23/02/10

      “There is no debate or dispute as to whether Saddam Hussein possesses weapons of mass destruction. He does.”

      - Kevin Rudd, Lateline, September 24, 2002.

    • John A Neve says:

      11:13am | 23/02/10

      Nicky,

      Thank you, but I cannot always be wrong, can I ?

    • Nicki. says:

      10:47am | 23/02/10

      John, for once I fully agree with you. Spot on.

    • Flipflop says:

      10:00am | 23/02/10

      John A Neve I feel you hit on the head as well others here. Sadly I feel Bronwyn has gone way past her use by date. Her constant ramblings are probably due to her advanced age, she is 67 years old. Her and Wilson Tuckey should head to greener pastures and let Young Liberals with bright fresh ideas have a chance.

    • Josh says:

      05:39am | 23/02/10

      God you write some tripe on here Bronwyn. It reads like talking points on Sarah Palin’s hand.

      David Marr’s actually right about the whole “praying” to get better thing, by the way. And he was spot on with his observations about The Australian.

      Reply

    • Vilnius Gimph says:

      04:02pm | 23/02/10

      Um didn’t you just write “typical ... play the person with derogatory remarks. no facts just slander. soooo sad”? Pot/kettle anyone?

    • annie says:

      02:22pm | 23/02/10

      silica Q&A and late line wow balanced political discission ha ha hahahahaha

    • Silica says:

      11:39am | 23/02/10

      You need to watch tv more Annie it was all on ABC last night , try watching QA and Lateline. Then do a websearch and you will find all the information there The poster was and is right.

    • annie says:

      11:10am | 23/02/10

      typical of left wing labor supporters play the person with derogatory remarks. no facts just slander. soooo sad

    • Bigboomer says:

      09:35am | 23/02/10

      Josh I agree with you mate, batty old Bron’s comes out with some garbage, why didn’t you tell us more about Tony Abbotts statement he would give up sex for Lent ( at least we know hes not getting it on the side with Barnaby cause Barnaby denied it)  or how about you telling us about his comments on bringing back the death penalty? Who’s he going to sentance to death? women who have abortions? I like The Insiders and yes I to agree David Marr was right about The Australian.  Try telling us the truth, we can handle it but I doubt you can

 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

ToryShepherd

ToryShepherd 26 May 12 01:27PM

Cheeky beers with morning papers in unexpected sunshine http://t.co/MD7VPRne

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 26 May 12 01:27PM

http://t.co/Zq0nGxkf nice pic of Thredbo this morning

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 12 12:52PM

@seamus yeah it's now called Smooth or Soft or Douchey Dad FM or something

Paul Colgan

Colgo 26 May 12 12:44PM

It's a Sydney thing, but 95.3FM... Why? It used to be all Bohemian Rhapsody and Walk this Way; now it's Father to Son and Country Road. Wah.

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

by Claire Connelly

20

We don’t deserve this huge, exciting scientific project

I’d like to be able to say that sharing the world’s largest radio telescope with South Africa…

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

by Laurie Oakes

54

Mining money talks the loudest in Australian politics

When North Queensland Liberal MP George Christensen got the idea of launching a new political organisation…

Please enter your password

by Lucy Kippist

33

Please enter your password

Help! I’ve succumbed to a crippling modern illness that can strike at any moment. Symptoms include:…

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed