Abbott the quiet achiever...

[Rorschach]

Get your facts together before you accuse me of lying. Write something with clarity and there will be no confusion...We know who the liar is and it isn't me. I didn't say the Australian was your recommended newspaper - the post was addressed to IQ quite clearly. So you're lying or either you're really stupid or perhaps you need new glasses? I go for you're "really stupid". Well according to you I must be really stupid, but if you write unclearly and make vague statements about to whom you are talking then I'm guessing that is not my problem. Like I said... make yourself clear or start 2 posts.

[mantra]

Get your facts together before you accuse me of lying. Write something with clarity and there will be no confusion...We know who the liar is and it isn't me. I didn't say the Australian was your recommended newspaper - the post was addressed to IQ quite clearly. So you're lying or either you're really stupid or perhaps you need new glasses? I go for you're "really stupid". Well according to you I must be really stupid, but if you write unclearly and make vague statements about to whom you are talking then I'm guessing that is not my problem. Like I said... make yourself clear or start 2 posts.

My post started off quoting IQ's post. I referred to him by nick twice in the post. How much clearer should I make it?

[Rorschach]

Your post followed mine... mantra you didn't start off making any sense..

normally you'd be addressing the previous post or name a person or provide a quote...

This is what you did instead.

Re: Abbott the quiet achiever...

Postby mantra » Sun Nov 03, 2013 9:31 am
I've transferred this post up here. IQ can dispute my words to his heart's content by denying these media reports.
Who are you talking to? me? Everyone? IQS? If you were talking to IQS wouldn't you simply have said... OK IQS lets see you deny these media reports....

IQS.RLOW wrote:Surprise, surprise! Leading off this thread is the old dribbler Moantra

No need to make personal insults.

Let's go through this first post for your benefit. We all know you're a bit slow so I'll make allowances for you. Who are you talking to?

The link doesn't open on my computer - but it's obvious who wrote it - Piers Akerman the over indulgent lying Lib lap dog. What a load of crap. I nearly gagged reading it. Akerman is not a credible source. Suddenly you are talking to me... is that right after all it was my link wasn't it you don't refer to any other.

The quiet achiever is a bulldust analogy for being mute, secretive and cunning. Again my topic... who are you talking to?

This is an opinion only - so it's not a lie just because you don't agree with me. There would be plenty of people who disagree with Akerman's commentary and that doesn't mean they're wrong and you're right. Now who are you talking to aren't you talking to me yet again about opinions? Like I said... you need to be clear... seems to me you are just confused or lying or both.

[mantra]

You really are a pedant Roach. IQ quoted my response to you and called it a lie. I responded by re-quoting his post which had quoted my response to you. I had already responded to you earlier with the same post. See IQ's thread in the Vortex. You know that, but you can't stand anyone else being right or having the last word so you're building it into something much bigger.

You can be likened to a tornado sucking someone into your vortex and hoping they can't escape.

[Rorschach]

You really are a pedant Roach. IQ quoted my response to you and called it a lie. I responded by re-quoting his post which had quoted my response to you. I had already responded to you earlier with the same post. See IQ's thread in the Vortex. You know that, but you can't stand anyone else being right or having the last word so you're building it into something much bigger.

You can be likened to a mini tornado sucking someone into your vortex and hoping they can't escape.

No mantra I face the facts you deny them....
Like I said you've got to be clear...
BTW, I don't visit the vortex much at all.
how's your lies topic going should be growing exponentially.
As for being right... you seldom are...

Now how about you stop all the crap you've initiated here and get back on topic for a change.

[Rorschach]

Lets see what is the truth about votes eh Hebe...

2PP
Australian Labor Party 5,583,215 46.55%
Liberal/National Coalition 6,411,134 53.45%
6411134-5583215=827919

So it seems that the Libs beat the ALP by 827,919 votes... not 30,000.
I heard it was the It was the lowest primary vote by the ALP since 1903...

Primary
Australian Labor Party 4,311,365 33.38
Liberal 4,134,865 32.02
Liberal National Party 1,152,217 8.92
The Nationals 554,268 4.29
Country Liberals (NT) 41,468 0.32
Lets just count the obvious...

ALP 4311365
Coalition 4134865+1152217+554268=5841350
5841350-4311365=1529985

So it seems on Primary votes the Coalition beat the ALP by 1,529,985 votes.
It was the lowest primary vote by the ALP since 1903.

So since the election the Coalition has surged ahead in the polls.. so I say bring on a DD, Abbott has nothing to fear...

[Hebe]

They're quiet because either they aren't achieving anything, or because they don't want people to know what they're doing.

Remember - only 30,000 votes got them in. Bring on a double dissolution (which they won't because they're too gutless), and they won't even last a full term.

Where did you get that figure from, Hebe? According the the AEC http://vtr.aec.gov.au/ the Official Results were:

Australian Labor Party..................5,583,215 ..... 46.55 ..... -3.65
Liberal/National Coalition.............6,411,134 ...... 53.45 .... +3.65

According to my calculator 6,411,134 minus 5,583,215 equals 827,919 a lot more than 30,000.

https://newmatilda.com/2013/09/24/thirt ... botts-gone

[Hebe]

http://theaimn.com/2013/09/26/afterthou ... t-victory/


'' 'We wuz robbed' would be precisely the wrong reaction,'' Mr Abbott writes. The Coalition won almost 700,000 more primary votes than Labor. But Labor won 50.12 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, putting it ahead of the Coalition by a wafer-thin 30,000-vote margin.
''An opposition that's only a couple of byelections or two independents' change of heart away from government has to be more than just a critic,'' he said.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/abbot ... z2jYd5rOiT

[Neferti]

Hebe,

Did you check the date of the Age article that mentions 30,000? September 2010

The quote from the above OLD September 2010 Age Article is below:-

'' 'We wuz robbed' would be precisely the wrong reaction,'' Mr Abbott writes. The Coalition won almost 700,000 more primary votes than Labor. But Labor won 50.12 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, putting it ahead of the Coalition by a wafer-thin 30,000-vote margin.
''An opposition that's only a couple of by elections or two independents' change of heart away from government has to be more than just a critic,'' he said.

The other link is written by a taxi driver named Doyle, same figures from the 2010 Federal Election.

Hebe, you are quoting figures from the 2010 Federal Election!!!! NOT the one that Tony Abbott won this year .... i.e. September 2013. The figures I obtained from the AEC where the Coalition was ahead of the ALP by 827,919 still stand. Ha ha ha.

[mantra]

Hebe,

Did you check the date of the Age article that mentions 30,000? September 2010

The quote from the above OLD September 2010 Age Article is below:-

'' 'We wuz robbed' would be precisely the wrong reaction,'' Mr Abbott writes. The Coalition won almost 700,000 more primary votes than Labor. But Labor won 50.12 per cent of the two-party preferred vote, putting it ahead of the Coalition by a wafer-thin 30,000-vote margin.
''An opposition that's only a couple of by elections or two independents' change of heart away from government has to be more than just a critic,'' he said.

The other link is written by a taxi driver named Doyle, same figures from the 2010 Federal Election.

Hebe, you are quoting figures from the 2010 Federal Election!!!! NOT the one that Tony Abbott won this year .... i.e. September 2013. The figures I obtained from the AEC where the Coalition was ahead of the ALP by 827,919 still stand. Ha ha ha.

It looks as though Hebe is using it as a comparison - Abbott's reaction to the 2010 election when the Coalition apparently won almost 700,000 more primary votes than Labor at the time.

The first link in the same post is a 2013 article. You need to read the article to keep yourself informed.