Keating Irrelevant

On Aug 26, 8:31*pm, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
> ex_liberal_voter <[email protected]> wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <[email protected]> wrote
> >> ex_liberal_voter <[email protected]> wrote
> >>> GerantSmythe <[email protected]> wrote
> >>>> Why are you a 'ex-liberal voter'?
> >>> In a word, WorkChoices. It was the Lieberal Party's means to install fascism in this country.
> >> You wouldnt know what real fascism was if it bit you on your lard arse..
> > For a start, retard, mind your own ****ing business.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never
> ever had a ****ing clue about what usenet is actually about.
>
> Anything else at all, either.
>
> > You don't have a ****ing clue what I do and don't know.
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that you wouldnt know what real fascism was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>
> >>> Now before anyone goes running off crying "alarmist",
> >>> think about the agenda behind the policy ...
> >> It was obvious what the agenda is, change the detail of employment
> >> conditions if both the employer and the employee wanted to do that.
> > Write in English, dumb****.
>
> Never ever could bull**** its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> > They aren't "agreements". It's "sign this, or **** off."
>
> How odd that so many in the WA mining industry were happy to sign, ****wit.
>
> > They aren't "individual" either. They were often photocopied and passedaround for everyone to sign.
>
> Like that or lump it, ****wit.
>
> >>> By destroying workers' unions,
> >> It wouldnt have destroyed wanker's unions, they have been rejected
> >> by the absolute vast bulk of the workforce for a hell of a long time now.
> > The agenda was to legislate unions into impotence. Kill them off.
>
> They have been rejected by the absolute vast bulk of the workforce for a hell of a long time now.
>
> > Wouldn't you love that?
>
> I'm happy that they have been rejected by the absolute vast bulk of the workforce for a hell of a long time now.
>
> > As a Liberal I bet you would love to see workers denied organised advocacy.
>
> No one was denying them that. They have been rejected by the
> absolute vast bulk of the workforce for a hell of a long time now.
>
> The real workers have voted with their wallets.
>
> The unions have got the obscene gesture the deserve from almost all of them for hell of a long time now.
>
> > Easier to screw them that way.
>
> How odd that they have been rejected by the absolute vast bulk of the workforce for a hell of a long time now.
>
> >>> the Labor Party itself would have been weakened,
> >> Too bad.
> > See you've missed the ****ing point because you rushed in to critique
> > a sentence before reading what the subsequent sentences say.
>
> Obvious lie.
>
> >>> being that that organisation receives a large part of its funding from the union movement.
> >> Too bad.
> > Dumb****.
>
> Wota stunningly rational line of argument you have there, child.
>
> >>> With a financially crippled Labor Party,
> >> You aint established that work choices would financially cripple the labor
> >> party any more than continuing falling union membership has already done.
> > Oh, I ain't eh? Ain't??
>
> Pathetic.
>
> > Actually I have and did.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>
> > Being an inbred RWF you missed the point.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>
> >>> the Lieberals would have had almost uncontested power in this country..
> >> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> >> never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
> > You're a stupid RWA aren't you.
>
> Nope.
>
> > If you attack a political party's primary revenue source (in this case,workers' unions),
>
> How odd that they have been rejected by the absolute vast bulk of the workforce for a hell of a long time now.
>
> > you limit the ability of the party to campaign, to promote their policies, to contest elections.
>
> Tell that to the absolute vast bulk of the workforce.
>
> They clearly dont give a flying red **** about that.
>
> > In Australia we have seen how vulnerable and precarious is the existence of political parties.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>
> > Witness the demise of the Democrats,
>
> They did footshot after footshot after footshot and even the stupidest
> voter had noticed that they were WAY past their useby date.
>
> You get to like that or lump it.
>
> > and before that the fizzling out of One Nation.
>
> They did footshot after footshot after footshot and even the stupidest
> voter had noticed that they were WAY past their useby date.
>
> You get to like that or lump it.
>
> > Aussies are not (compared to other countries) big
> > participators or contributors to political activity.
>
> You get to like that or lump it.
>
> > Once a party starts to go down (or is sabotaged by a weapon
> > like SerfChoices), its descent might be irreversible).
>
> Tell that to the absolute vast bulk of the workforce.
>
> They clearly dont give a flying red **** about that.
>
> You get to like that or lump it.
>
> > A diminished Labor Party might have been the start of an irreversible downward spiral.
>
> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
>
> > Leading, if we are to recognise Howard’s rat-cunning, to a situation
> > of Liberal hegemony less and less impeded by a Labor opposition.
>
> How odd that when the absolute vast bulk of the workforce have decided that unions
> are WAY past their useby date, that they gave Howard's govt the bums rush..
>
> >> Labor didnt win the last election due to the money
> >> that any unions ever contributed to the labor party.
> > What is your point in saying that?
>
> Just rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that you have never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
>
> > Are you: a) lying; b) deluded; or c) trying to be funny?
>
> Just rubbing your stupid nose in the fact that you have never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
>
> > The union campaign against FascistChoices was one of the main reasons the Lieberal Party went down.
>
> Just another of your pathetic little drug crazed fantasys, child.
>
> They'd actually decided that Howard had passed his useby date and that the risk with the dud was minimal
> given that the economy was booming. It had absolutely nothing to do with the lies those union clowns spewed.
>
> If the workforce had bought those union lies, they would have signed
> up for the union and not even one of them was actually that stupid.
>
> > You must be really dumb if you aren't aware of that.
>
> Have fun explaining how come no one signed up for a union.
>
> > And the ACTU, in its campaign against SerfChoices, spent less
> > thatn 15% of what the Lieberal government spent promoting it.
>
> The voters didnt give a flying red **** about that ****.
>
> > Only the Lieberals didn't use THEIR OWN money to promote their party's
> > policy. They used PUBLIC money, compulsorily acquired through taxation.
>
> Corse the dud never ever does anything like that, eh ?
>
> >>> Scary when you consider that the Liberal Party is anything but "liberal".
> >>> They are the most ultra right wing mainstream party in living memory.
> >> Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
> >> never ever had a ****ing clue about anything at all, ever.
> > OK ****wit, tell me of a further right wing mainstream party
> > (by mainstream I mean "in government") in Australia.
>
> The Nats, ****wit.
>
> > Howard himself said he was "the most conservative leader the Liberal Party had ever had".
>
> You're lying, as always.
>
> > SerfChoices was the most extreme IR legislation in the western world.
>
> You're lying, as always.
>
> >> So stupid that it doesnt even remember One Notion or the Nats.
> > One Nation are not mainstream.
>
> Pathetic.
>
> > Where are they now? ****ed. Fascist Tony Abbott ran Pauline Hanson intojail, remember?
>
> You wouldnt know what a real fascist was if it bit you on your lard arse.
>
> > The Nationals are right wing in social policy,
>
> Funny that.
>
> > but they've always got their hand out to the government for money.
>
> Corse no one else ever does anything like that, eh ?
>
> > Privatise the profits; socialise the losses.
>
> Bet you cant cite even a single example of that last.
>
> > The agrarian socialists!
>
> You wouldnt know what a real agrarian socialist was if it bit you on yourlard arse.
>
> >>> Say whatever you like about the Labor Party, we need at least
> >>> two strong parties to keep each other performing at their best.
> >> And Work Choices wouldnt have changed that.
> > WorkChoices agenda was to kill unions and thus debilitate the Labor
> > Party, depleting its ability to promote policies and contest elections.
>
> How odd that that didnt actually happen when the absolute vast bulk of the
> workforce made an obscene gesture in the general direction of all unions.
>
> > How many times have I got to explain this to you?
>
> You can keep lying till the cows come home child, changes absolutely nothing at all.
>
> >>> A weakened Labor Party would have resulted in bad government by the Lieberals, to say the least.
> >> How odd that they delivered the lowest unemployment rate
> >> in 30 years and by far the biggest surpluses in even longer.
> > Stupid.
>
> ****wit.
>
> > I was talking about the medium-to-long term of SerfChoices.
>
> You were lying, as always.
>
> > That means FUTURE, ****wit, not what has already happened.
>
> The big difference is that your lies about what will happen are always just your lies.
>
> What they have actually done is a different matter entirely.
>
> > Strong Oppositions make for good government.
>
> The lowest unemployment rate in 30 years and by far the biggest surplusesin
> even longer didnt have a damned thing to do with the opposition, ****wit child.
>
> > Over time SerfChoices would have weakened the Labor Party,
>
> How odd that that didnt actually happen when the absolute vast bulk of the
> workforce made an obscene gesture in the general direction of all unions.
>
> Even someone as stupid as you should have noticed that they got elected anyway.
>
> > thus making for poor government.
>
> How odd that that didnt actually happen when the absolute vast bulk of the
> workforce ...
>
> read more »

Now listen here, you dumb scum. I'm not going to give a sentence-by-
sentence response to YOUR sentence-by-sentence critique of MY post
that answered the original question put by ANOTHER poster. I've
already given you more time than you deserve.

You can take your IR extremism and your trash-heap Lieberal manners
and shove it up your tight arse, you despicable Liberal scum.

Go and tell your children / grandchildren how you enthusiastically
vote to cut their throats in the workplace, and tell them how you will
never vote any other way. Low-down anti-Australian Liberal scum.

---

› See More: Keating Irrelevant

On Aug 27, 9:02*am, "Rod Speed" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
> ex_liberal_voter <[email protected]>
> desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way out of its
> predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

There is no "predicament", ****wit, except that of your own making.
Someone asked me a question. I answered. You butted in uninvited with
a sentence-by-sentence "critique" of my answer. I gave you a sentence-
by-sentence response to your sentence-by-sentence "critique". You gave
a sentence-by-sentence response to my sentence-by-sentence response to
your sentence-by-sentence critique of my answer to another poster.

And now here you are fishing for a sentence-by-sentence response to
your sentence-by-sentence response to my sentence-by-sentence response
to your sentence-by-sentence critique of my answer to another poster.

Well go to hell. I can't put it clearer than that. Go to hell.

You are an uninformed lying IR extremist arsehole who said to a
stranger (me) their kids should be retrospectively aborted to prevent
them breeding. Despicable Lieberal scum. Go and tell your own kids how
you enthusiastically vote (Lieberal) for their throats to be cut in
the workplace.

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008 16:15:58 -0700 (PDT) ex_liberal_voter
<[email protected]> wrote:

> You are an uninformed lying IR extremist arsehole who said to a
> stranger (me) their kids should be retrospectively aborted to prevent
> them breeding. Despicable Lieberal scum. Go and tell your own kids how
> you enthusiastically vote (Lieberal) for their throats to be cut in
> the workplace.


Obviously you haven't come across "Our Roddles" (Rod Speed) in a ng before?

On Aug 27, 10:16*am, Polly the Parrot <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Obviously you haven't come across "Our Roddles" (Rod Speed) in a ng before?

Obviously you have. Looks like a troll, judging from my flame-filled
"reaction".

Christ, I feel like I need a shower after that.

"Our Roddles" eh? I'd be trying to disown him, I were you ...

ex_liberal_voter wrote:
> On Aug 27, 10:16 am, Polly the Parrot <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> Obviously you haven't come across "Our Roddles" (Rod Speed) in a ng
>> before?
>
> Obviously you have. Looks like a troll, judging from my flame-filled
> "reaction".
>
> Christ, I feel like I need a shower after that.
>
> "Our Roddles" eh? I'd be trying to disown him, I were you ...

Please apply your *****-checker. The word is "drown".

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
ex_liberal_voter <[email protected]>
desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.

Some gutless ****wit desperately cowering behind
ex_liberal_voter <[email protected]>
desperately attempted to bull**** and lie its way out of its
predicament and fooled absolutely no one at all, as always.