2013 Federal election (1 Viewer)

[Rafy]

I know, but it's also on the front page.

Election editorials are always on the front page. Fairfax etc do it too.

"Staff writers" - I like how whoever wrote that couldn't even put their name on it.

Thats the usual practice for an editorial.

 

[Absolutezero]

Election editorials are always on the front page. Fairfax etc do it too.

It's still ridiculous.

 

[townie]

So I see people still thinks the telegraph counts as a newspaper when it's becoming clearer and clearer they are a lobby group masquerading as a free press, and they wonder why the government might want to regulate?

And anybody who think that they only support one side just in editorial content and not right across the entire paper is an idiot

 

[Lentern]

So I see people still thinks the telegraph counts as a newspaper when it's becoming clearer and clearer they are a lobby group masquerading as a free press, and they wonder why the government might want to regulate?

And anybody who think that they only support one side just in editorial content and not right across the entire paper is an idiot

Perhaps, but they are sillier still if they think media bias is some magic wand that could be waved and just like that a struggling political party will bounce back into contention.

 

[townie]

Perhaps, but they are sillier still if they think media bias is some magic wand that could be waved and just like that a struggling political party will bounce back into contention.

Because that's totally what I said? Because im pretty sure i didnt. No doubt it had an impact, but Labor's central failing in this campaign IMHO is the failure to have a clear, consistent message. Instead it's been thought bubbles and selfies from Kevin.

 

[obliviousninja]

Some bookies are now offering 1.01 odds on a Coalition win.

I want my free nutella!

 

[Rafy]

All of the Sunday papers election editorials are supporting a change of government.

Time voters took a new direction (Sunday Mail Brisbane)
AFTER six years of failed government, Australia finally has the chance to take a new direction. Labor has failed itself and our great nation.

Time's up for Rudd but jury is still out on Abbott (Sun Herald)
Kevin Rudd does not deserve to win the federal election on Saturday. Nor does the party that he purports to lead.

Tony Abbott should become Australia's Prime Minister (Sunday Telegraph)
In six days' time, Tony Abbott should become our 28th Prime Minister.

No vision or inspiration, so who do you trust to govern? (The Sunday Age)
A difficult choice, but the Coalition has at least shown unity.

Labor only has itself to blame (Sunday Mail Adelaide)
IF Kevin Rudd loses next week's election - the indications are that he clearly will - he and the ALP only have themselves to blame.

Australia must vote for a comprehensive new way (Sunday Times Perth)
AUSTRALIA is crying out for better governance. Even Labor is pleading for "A New Way". In doing so, it implicitly concedes there's something very wrong with the way it has run the country.

 

[Kiraken]

Goddamn the telegraph is awful

 

[Kiraken]

All of the Sunday papers election editorials are supporting a change of government.

Time voters took a new direction (Sunday Mail Brisbane)
AFTER six years of failed government, Australia finally has the chance to take a new direction. Labor has failed itself and our great nation.

Time's up for Rudd but jury is still out on Abbott (Sun Herald)
Kevin Rudd does not deserve to win the federal election on Saturday. Nor does the party that he purports to lead.

Tony Abbott should become Australia's Prime Minister (Sunday Telegraph)
In six days' time, Tony Abbott should become our 28th Prime Minister.

No vision or inspiration, so who do you trust to govern? (The Sunday Age)
A difficult choice, but the Coalition has at least shown unity.

Labor only has itself to blame (Sunday Mail Adelaide)
IF Kevin Rudd loses next week's election - the indications are that he clearly will - he and the ALP only have themselves to blame.

Australia must vote for a comprehensive new way (Sunday Times Perth)
AUSTRALIA is crying out for better governance. Even Labor is pleading for "A New Way". In doing so, it implicitly concedes there's something very wrong with the way it has run the country.

Btw aren't all but two of those newspapers owned by murdoch?

The two that aren't, namely the herald and the age, aren't exactly positive of a Coalition government either

 

[Lentern]

Because that's totally what I said? Because im pretty sure i didnt. No doubt it had an impact, but Labor's central failing in this campaign IMHO is the failure to have a clear, consistent message. Instead it's been thought bubbles and selfies from Kevin.

I never said you did, that being said thou doth protest too much.

 

[lee337]

No vision or inspiration, so who do you trust to govern? (The Sunday Age)
A difficult choice, but the Coalition has at least shown unity.

Labor only has itself to blame (Sunday Mail Adelaide)
IF Kevin Rudd loses next week's election - the indications are that he clearly will - he and the ALP only have themselves to blame.

I think these two are fair.

 

[townie]

Abbot's comments on Syria are exactly why I don't want him anywhere near the leadership of this country. No matter whether you agree with military action or not or whether you think Assad is responsible or not, I just cannot fathom how anyone who has seen the pictures of the outcome of the attack (I have), which are just horrific, could then go on to dismiss the whole thing as "baddies vs baddies".

God help us all.

 

[isildurrrr1]

Abbot's comments on Syria are exactly why I don't want him anywhere near the leadership of this country. No matter whether you agree with military action or not or whether you think Assad is responsible or not, I just cannot fathom how anyone who has seen the pictures of the outcome of the attack (I have), which are just horrific, could then go on to dismiss the whole thing as "baddies vs baddies".

God help us all.

Yeah because aiding one group killing another worked out really well in afghanistan didn't it. Saddam used chemical weapons on the kurds and I don't see people crying out that we should've invaded iraq. Nobody wants to take military action, the UK parliament voted against it, the US government is just barking, and Australia if we get involved, nor should we.

 

[funkshen]

Yeah because aiding one group killing another worked out really well in afghanistan didn't it. Saddam used chemical weapons on the kurds and I don't see people crying out that we should've invaded iraq. Nobody wants to take military action, the UK parliament voted against it, the US government is just barking, and Australia if we get involved, nor should we.

uhh.. the U.S. bombed iraq in 1998 to destroy a number of chemical weapons facilities

 

[isildurrrr1]

uhh.. the U.S. bombed iraq in 1998 to destroy a number of chemical weapons facilities

yeah and it had nothing to do with trying to destabilize saddams regime right? If the US actually cared that much about the use of WMD's, maybe they shouldn't have sold the shit to iraq and iran in the first place.

 

[funkshen]

yeah and it had nothing to do with trying to destabilize saddams regime right?

maybe a little bit, but the ostensible purpose of the attacks were to enforce UNSC disarmament schedules. the bombing was surgical and, as far as any civilian can be aware, almost all the targets were directly related to WMD manufacture and storage. even if there were ulterior motives, even destablizing the hussein regime, i don't see how this defeats the notion that it would be imprudent for the U.S. to degrade the Assad regime's chemical weapon capabilities.

If the US actually cared that much about the use of WMD's, maybe they shouldn't have sold the shit to iraq and iran in the first place.

the U.S. is only one of dozens of countries are responsible for iraq's WMD capacities. and we're not talking about iraq or iran. we're talking about syria, and the use of WMDs on civilians in a civil war. i'm not talking about an invasion.

 

[isildurrrr1]

You think the US won't have to put boots on the ground if they want to intervene in syria? You'd be extremely naive if you think its only going to be limited to naval and air strikes

 

[funkshen]

You think the US won't have to put boots on the ground if they want to intervene in syria? You'd be extremely naive if you think its only going to be limited to naval and air strikes

why would I be naive? the U.S./NATO now has an impressive resume of the limited use of aerial warfare. bosnia, kosovo, iraq, libya. yes, boots were on the ground in yugoslavia in a peacekeeping role, but the libyan experience can be directly transposed and is THE model for an air campaign in syria. i seriously doubt the U.S. is interested resolving the Syrian conflict itself, but is rather more interested in disruption and playing the long game (kicking assad AND the islamists out).

 

[isildurrrr1]

why would I be naive? the U.S./NATO now has an impressive resume of the limited use of aerial warfare. bosnia, kosovo, iraq, libya. yes, boots were on the ground in yugoslavia in a peacekeeping role, but the libyan experience can be directly transposed and is THE model for an air campaign in syria. i seriously doubt the U.S. is interested resolving the Syrian conflict itself, but is rather more interested in disruption and playing the long game (kicking assad AND the islamists out).

yeah because all those places had brand new anti-air missile systems right? This isn't some second tier weaponary, this is shit russia would've used to defend east germany against a NATO attack. The system is HIGHLY advanced. Hell Israel is buying F35's only to counter future use of S300 missile system in the middle east.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...es-prevent-hotheads-intervening-conflict.html

They'll pretty much shoot down anything that doesn't have stealth capabilities. You know russia is going out of their way to back syria right?

yeah lets help the rebels even more!

 

[alekovic]

The conflict in Syria is just that, "baddies vs baddies"; foreign radical Islamist terrorists/militants against the Al Assad Government. Professional mercenaries are now pouring into Syria and having a high season. Passports of the dead show that many have come from Libya, Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Chechnia, Turkey and even France or the UK.

Those who are trying to implicate the Syrian government as being behind the use of chemical weapons are seriously misguided. It defies common sense to suggest that Syrian soldiers would use chemical weapons against civilians. Rather, it is certainly more plausible that it was most likely an effort of the FSA who, among the other horrendous atrocities they have committed over the last two years (be-headings, pointblank executions, testing of chemical weapons on bunny rabbits etc) , are trying to pull western powers into a war that they are losing.