Recent comments by: Steve
Joyce's usual bravado indicates he is unaware that water is a poisoned chalice. If the Nat's are not wise to how they handle this responsibility, they will lose voters to the independents..
It looks like News Corp's favourable reporting of Abbott is paying off.
Sure Rod - Those city slickers will come begging for help from country people - then you'll get your justice. In the mean time Rod - just sit back and wait for it to happen because as you say, it will happen.
You fool Mott - not getting your facts right is a habit with you.
Just to prove Mott is wrong yet again, I approve of the moderator reveaing my email address if there is any evidence that Bill and myself are the same person.
Like I said Mott - you are a fool.
I must say I am enjoying this. Lets once again look at how Mott reveals his own limitations. He states one has lost an argument when one reverts to abusive terms. In the very next breath, he then refers to the label 'poor white urban trash'. He believes that simply by living overseas and speaking other languages, gives him a superior position in our community, in doing, completely ignores the fact that I myself mayhave also lived overseas and speak other languages.
Mott has repeatedly shown by his own statements, the lack of logic and reasoning that typify those who share his opinions
Mott - your intellect is still in doubt until you expand on your previous theory that anyone who supports the coatilition must, ipso facto, be anti animal welfare, anti environment and pro any of your ideas on conservatism. It is quite extrordinary the degree with which your comments encapsulate narrow mindedness.
If it is at all possible, provide evidence of Turnbull's lack of ethics, without your usual resorting to emotive and biased nonsence. I believe you are incapable.
Loc Hey - Perhaps you might display your superior intelligence and expand on the term "inwardly dumb". Again, are you able to expand on the use of the term 'or anything'. On another point that will reveal how 'smarter' you are, can you tell us how believing 'a science is settled' is an indication of being 'unimaginative'.
This is getting better. Lets look at red-neck mentality again. Loc Hey is infering that Australians in general, will dislike a member of parliament on the basis of what they drink and where they drink it. Furthermore, Loc Hey, like other red-necks, argues that Turnbull's policies are identical to those of Labour/The Greens.
Tell me Loc Hey, do you ever read the papers or listen to the news? It is clear to any thinking Australian that your assertion is nonsense. Your comment needs to be evidenced - a challenge you are incapable of performing.
So there you are Mott. You have shown us all how narrow minded and ignorant you are.
Only people who prescribe to your red neck ways cannot possibly be Liberal. According to Mott, coalition suuporters cannot possibly be environmentally consciious, nor can they be concerned with animal welfare, nor can they be republican.
Go on Mott, expand on your reasoning - I have the sword held above your head.
The main reason why red necks don't like Turnbull is that hate people who are prosperous - a dream always beyond their reach
Mott - once again you have got it wrong. I have no respect for the current government nor Gillard herself. I am a strong supporter of the Coalition. For that reason, I can't wait to see Turnbull take his rightful place as leader of the party, and eventually the PM's position.
Mott and facts are mutually exclusive.
A real class act Niven. Poverty stricken peasants in Mexico are devestated by drought and you respond with a stupid unthinking comment like that. By the way, while I accept the science of human induced climate change, I disagree with the format of the carbon tax - but you will not get me sinking to your depth to proclaim my position.
Nico picked up on a major point. Mott has unknowingly placed the climate sceptics' position in a nutshell.
In the first few words, Mott realised the article was contrary to his firm held beliefs on climate change. He then refused to read any further.
Well picked up nico and thank you Mott for the window into the sceptic think tank.
You obviously have not checked your 'facts' have you Sir Les.
The benchmark for aspiring leaders of our agricultural industries - "rolling a giant bale, driving a tractor and assembling a cattle crush." How comforting!
While the targets are lower than most other countries that will be at the Paris talks, it is at least with some comfort that we find even Tony Abbott has now accepted the science of global warming. As for Darwin, alias 777, he/she will always claim humans can never influence that which is God's 'will' - quaint idea that it is.
A badly aimed shot rings out from the valley below!
John Wayne, the war has already been fought and won. For the handful of flat earthers, they will be confined to a lonely and historic battlefield.
For those reading the comments written by 'Darwin', I think they should be aware that he/she has repeatedly quoted falsehoods in the past, and when cornered on his/her obvious mistakes, simply goes off on another red herring. For those who have not already picked this up, his/her comments need to be taken with a substantial dose of salts. By the way, Nico, you are perfectly correct.
Sit back everyone and once again be entertained by the science denying collective as they grapple with these findings. Be particularly entertained by the religious far right who refuse to accept the evidence of human influenced global warming.
The comments from Max also illustrate the inability of the science denying collective to understand what is blatantly placed in front of them. He incorrectly states my above comment referred to 'climate change'. In fact I referred to 'global warming'. Again, this also says it all.
If you browse through the comments from the science denying collective, you'll notice a common theme, as is expressed in Ivan's comment above - we are having cold mornings and therefore, there is no global warming. This says it all!
For those with a reasonable degree of intelligence, I ask you not bother responding to Darwin's comments - you'll only look as puerile as he is.