March 30, 2012

Abbott in hot water ... again

Should this man critique women's bottoms and sartorial choices?

13 comments:

  1. Storm in a tea cup. Sheesh just about the whole of Australia would agree with Greer's comments,(mostly I pay little attention to what she says but she was right in this instance) so why not Tony.

    Gillard DOES have a big arse and her poor choice of attire only accentuates that fact.

    Well, she wouldn't listen to you Caz, nor amny others I imagine. Obtuse! No idea on how to dress or to run a country.. And that's not funny, either. :P

    Taking another goood look at Abbott's body Caz, I realize now why I think he's got such a hot one. Very much same shape as R, and the hairy chest as well. Though R's arms are more muscular from all the heavy lifting he has done over the years. Lol.

    What a relief, I was beginning to think that there was something wrong with me there for awhile ;)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Storm, no storm, beat up, no beat up.

    Abbott just can't stop himself, which is more the point.

    I know he's got your vote Kath, not sure about the rest of the women in the country ... even if an Abbott nanny state will be paying for nannies.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Although you did, I deduce, enjoy the gratuitous pic of Abbott ...

    ReplyDelete
  4. No he does not have my vote at all Caz. Lol. R has my vote. :D

    In this instance Abbott just agreed with someone who posited the question about Gillard's arse and lack of fashion sense.

    Sheesh give the guy a break. He can't always be telling porky pies. ;)

    It was amusing to see all the women with glass jaws throw a tantrum over Tone's comment. Sheesh you'd think that they would have more important things to worry about. They of course did not mind when other women severely castigated Jules for her fashion sense. Savva from the Oz and Gai Waterhouse to name a couple.

    In any case I much prefer Abbotts response than the wimpy one from Broadbent. The truth from Abbott was refreshing for a change. He had not set out to attack Gillard, just responded that Greer was right.


    Broadbent said:

    ''I'd suggest the Prime Minister is wearing classic lines. I wouldn't be criticising the Prime Minister for what she wears,'' Mr Broadbent told ABC 24. He said Ms Gillard wanted to be fashionable. The deputy leader of the Liberal Party, Julie Bishop also liked to be fashionable. ''Most of us don't have the perfect body, but we like to be fashionable,''

    In other words she has a fat arse~! lolz

    This will all be forgotten about tomorrow.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Solomon3:09 PM

    He's a crowd-pleaser and doesn't care that what he says to one group will be identified and re-broadcast to the rest of us, who might not be so amused; and worse, that a meek apology solves all. If I'm not mistaken women hear plenty of abuse followed by "oh but I'm so sorry." Addressing misogyny isn't fixed by apologies; apologies cost nothing.

    It isn't a crime to be stupid, but it is a crime to be stupid and be a neurosurgeon, and this is why, by analogy, I don't want Tony Abbott to be PM.

    I picked up 'battlelines' in a bookstore and opened it to a page about cars; apparently people gain a sense of security from driving cars, women especially, and so we shouldn't treat motorists as social pariahs like we do smokers, etc. It read to me like high comedy: people, women especially, gain a delusion of power and safety from motoring and this is something to be encouraged.

    All it did was bring to mind counter-examples from my own past where 'security' wasn't the end result, for one young woman, especially (she was killed in a head on collision). It's the role of government to reinforce safety on the roads; it isn't to give an ego-boost to motorists and to tell them (falsely) that they are social pariahs.

    I think he lacks an understanding of the broader implications of what he says; it's not enough for a Prime Minister to satisfy the person in front of him/her.

    The recent example that keeps being brought to my attention by my little friends is Abbott's comments that "we are all Israelis" and so shouldn't have "moral qualms" about Israel's actions. I'm not an Israeli, I hate to break it to you; are Palestinian Australians also Israelis? How am I, as (potential) constituent supposed to feel about that comment? Don't I have the right to expect that my representative on the world stage will be even-handed and evaluate Israeli actions, firstly as they pertain to Australia's interests, and secondly, individually and according to their merit? That we're a sovereign nation with an entitlement to our own viewpoint?

    Worse, it's dreadfully patronising and insulting to Jewish Australians, to insist that what they would want from their Prime Minister is a moral blank cheque for the actions of another state - with the unintentional (and oblivious) innuendo that there *is* something morally perilous in the way things are being done. That that is enough: that they don't require any energy, or expenditure, or effort, except this one thing, which costs Abbott nothing to say, not even the mental effort to re-tool a cliche, and that they don't have pressing interests *as Australians*, such as the economy, healthcare, etc, in which a future Prime Minister should properly address. That they are not Australians, primarily, with attachment and legitimate interests in Australia, but are some kind of Israeli fifth column which wants only to neutralise potential critics in power.

    I recall a comment that came from 'Asian' businessmen that they were tired of being asked by journalists about Pauline Hanson, and were relieved when they were asked about the economy. The same applies here, at least to my mind, if Tony wants to try something a little less inept.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "It isn't a crime to be stupid, but it is a crime to be stupid and be a neurosurgeon, and this is why, by analogy, I don't want Tony Abbott to be PM."'

    Me either Sol.

    And it's for that very same reason that I reject Gillard as PM, as well.

    We are basically stuffed, here.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Kath - I think you're forgetting that many posts here, from nearly a year ago, were explicitly and at length, critical of Julia Gillard's choice of colour, cut and sizing, among other comments about her personal presentation.

    Those "letters to the PM" were not only posted here, they were, in fact, sent - in full - to the Prime Minister.

    Now, long after having pointed out the obvious, everyone else is jumping on the bandwagon as if they're geniuses.

    I suppose they are: they get paid for their crap, while I don't get paid for mine.

    Yawn.

    Ho hum.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Sol - intelligent and apt thoughts, as usual.

    I was mostly being tongue in cheek, and the gratuitous red Speedos shot is an ongoing joke with Kath.

    My only serious point was the continuing inappropriateness of pretty much every loose canon statement that tumbles from Abbott. This isn't a once in a while thing: for Abbott, it's a way of life.

    It's not that there's anything wrong with Abbott being himself, goodness knows we can do with a few dozen pollies who have convictions, thoughts, and courage enough to speak their minds. It's also not that there's anything wrong with a pollie, or a PM, crossing the line from time to time - Howard, Keating, Hawke, they each did.

    No, it's that there's something fundamentally discordant with Abbott, something that won't be knocked out of him if he gets a new job title, something that makes him entirely unsuitable for Prime Minister.

    His policy-on-the-run announcements, unlike his numerous blokey blunders, are plain dangerous, reckless.

    No, Abbott will not grow into being a reliable, considered Prime Minister anymore than Julia Gillard.

    We are so fooked.

    Will Turnbull, and the Libs, grow some balls any time soon, choose not to merely coast into the next landslide win, but utterly annihilate the ALP and the Greens?

    Won't happen, I know, but we can dream.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Anonymous9:48 PM

    something fundamentally discordant with Abbott

    Yeah, there's something missing, but it doesn't seem to worry him a lot. So I'm not worried either.

    You see, my neurosurgeon (Dr Geoff) was a little bit stupidddd, but he done a really good job on me, and for love.

    I reckon he could do it for the Abbott toooo.

    Justin Herzl.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I reckon he could do it for the Abbott toooo."

    What, remove his extra toes and thumbs?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Anonymous10:10 PM

    That would be a good start, and then Geoff could work his way up - to Abbott's neuro bit, or is it Nero bit.

    j

    ReplyDelete
  12. "something fundamentally discordant with Abbott"

    Indeed, and with Gillard too.

    "We are us?"

    What a fucking stoopid thing to say.

    Seriously people, could you imagine Keating, Hawke or even Howard coming up with such drivel?

    Pfft!

    ReplyDelete
  13. Yes, but Gillard is worse, having not, for one moment, been able to fashion herself as even remotely prime ministerial. She is singularly unsuited to the role she aspired to her entire life, which is perplexing (both her aspiration and her unsuitability).

    Abbott, on the other hand, with his education and more worldly working background should and does hover around the edges of not having over-reached in his aspirations ... but then, then - always - like a naughty boy, a boy with an undisciplined mind, he comes out with some idiot policy or says something unremarkable if coming from anyone else, but totally wrong coming from the leader of the opposition and the would-be PM.

    And Joe as treasurer? Christ! At least not as boring as Swan, but poor old Joe is no treasurer.

    Who the hell is going to get our economy back on track?! And when?!

    "We are us" ... arrrgh! I had blocked that out of my mind. Soooo embarrassing.

    ReplyDelete