chaserforum.net

Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
Advanced search  

News:

All content is the responsibility of individual users. If concerned by any message, report it. Abuse not tolerated and will lead to banning. By using this site you agree to its rules.

Pages: 1 [2]

Author Topic: Election debate  (Read 2367 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Corducci Enterprises

  • Outstaying welcome
  • *****
  • Posts: 1262
  • Mr Duncan Emelio CORDUCCI (pictured)
    • Dunco DENIM, Fine Fashion-Moderately Priced
Re: Election debate
« Reply #15 on: October 22, 2007, 02:18:04 PM »


Logged
My name is Duncan Corducci.In 1975 I started a company called "Dunco Denim: Fine Fashion, Moderately Priced" My clothes are sold in most retail outlets in Australia and in my boutique, Duncans House of Fine Fashion in Manuka, Canberra. (Ph) 6354 84563.

grooviechickie

  • Resident Slut
  • Having a difficult time with reality
  • ****
  • Posts: 14584
  • I want to be his fingers...
Re: Election debate
« Reply #16 on: October 22, 2007, 02:51:32 PM »

Long time no pics, Dunco.  :lol:
Logged
"I love you, and because I love you, I would sooner have you hate me for telling you the truth than adore me for telling you lies." Pietro Aretino

depreciative jones

  • Junkie
  • ***
  • Posts: 241
  • your brain is next
Re: Election debate
« Reply #17 on: October 22, 2007, 03:44:20 PM »

It was interesting to see Howard use the same old mudslinging tactics on Rudd to little or no avail. He's so used to having aggressive opponents that he can rile with personal attacks that he seemed to get panicky and flustered every time Rudd would giggle at or shrug him off. It certainly demonstrated to me that Rudd has learned something from his predecessors about the way to deal with Howard - ie. if he remains unfazed by personal criticism and instead hammers home those soundbites about education and Howard's shitty record as Treasurer he'll win some public appeal.

That said, Rudd's constant smug smirks and carefully practised gestures were driving me nuts. In learning from the mistakes of Beazley and Latham he's evidently hired a team of marketing consultants to work out ways to sell him and Labor policies to the public, and that's what most of his speech felt like - a sales pitch ('wanna buy an education revolution, sonny?').

I could almost see the scene with his immaculately slick Speech Coach - 'you gotta level with the Australian people, man. Seem approachable and honest, but a dash of cheeky schoolboy won't go astray either. Now, remember the gesture I taught you when you bring up the FIVE TIMES Howard screwed up when he was Treasurer? Let's see it again, buddy! Yeah, you nailed it! High fives all round!'

Inherently, there's probably nothing wrong with taking a different approach to selling yourself to the Australian people - the usual method of bashing your opponent and making outrageous promises has always stuck in my craw, anyway (I wish I knew where or what my craw was, so I could dig it out and sleep easily, but we all have our challenges in life). However, there's a fine line between seeming honest, collected and intelligent when you sell and seeming like a reject from the casting couch of a Baker's Delight commercial. I'd be more likely to believe Rudd's attitude and leadership are destined to be 'fresh' and 'hip' if I didn't see that glazed look in his eyes - the one that tells me he's desperately trying to recall the 'fresh' and 'hip' phrases he's been fed by some wanker in an Armani suit who challenged him to a game of Foosball while they 'rapped' about politics.

At this moment, I think Rudd did some good things for his popularity last night. On the other hand, I'm anticipating Howard will have many, many more ridiculous and unattainable promises to make before the campaign is through - he's so wild for them, he even tried to get Rudd to make some last night as well. Whether or not the Australian public will fall for them - and then shrug when they turn out to be leprechaun gold - remains to be seen.
Logged
depreciative jones and whophd are indifferent acquaintences.
By contrast, depreciative jones and Erubadhriel are now NU BEST FRAINEDS 4EVAZ WOOLOLOAZRPEWPEWLASERBEAMSBBQJAZZHANDS!!!1!!!!11!11!!ONE!

Adi

  • Resident Giraffe
  • Fascist
  • Evil Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
Re: Election debate
« Reply #18 on: October 22, 2007, 07:44:54 PM »

I'm anticipating Howard will have many, many more ridiculous and unattainable promises to make before the campaign is through - he's so wild for them, he even tried to get Rudd to make some last night as well. Whether or not the Australian public will fall for them - and then shrug when they turn out to be leprechaun gold - remains to be seen.

The Australian public has a long track record of falling for them. And then appearing to forget their lack of delivery just in time for the next election.

Did you notice Howard's own bit of "me-tooism" at the end? In his summing up, he used the phrase 'education revolution' about his own plan! I thought it was interesting that he concluded on education rather than the economy - acknowledging, perhaps, that it's an issue on which Labor could win a lot of votes.
Logged
Before you criticise someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.

Adi

  • Resident Giraffe
  • Fascist
  • Evil Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
Re: Election debate
« Reply #19 on: October 22, 2007, 08:13:59 PM »

Just watched ACA's story on the end of free speech in Australia (ie how the worm was sabotaged last night), and at the end they had the phone poll results on who viewers thought won the debate. 52% said Howard, and that's from over 47,000 votes (that's half the size of the average electorate, or pretty much a whole NT electorate, and many many times the sample number in an opinion poll). That's despite the pro-Rudd worm, despite Rudd's well-rehearsed gestures, despite Howard's grumpiness. Food for thought.
Logged
Before you criticise someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.

a passing lunatic

  • Outstaying welcome
  • *****
  • Posts: 1258
  • .. .. .. .. ..
Re: Election debate
« Reply #20 on: October 23, 2007, 05:00:22 PM »

to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they fabricated that.

It is channel 9, after all.
Logged
When I grow up, I wanna be a raving lunatic.

Adi

  • Resident Giraffe
  • Fascist
  • Evil Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
Re: Election debate
« Reply #21 on: October 23, 2007, 08:04:48 PM »

to be honest, I wouldn't be surprised if they fabricated that.

It is channel 9, after all.

I wouldn't put it past them to exaggerate the figures, if not fabricate them entirely. But the way Ray's been whinging the last few days, I don't see why they would have artificially made the result pro-Howard. They seem to be blaming the Libs for the whole worm debacle.
Logged
Before you criticise someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.

Scipio

  • Groupie
  • **
  • Posts: 55
Re: Election debate
« Reply #22 on: October 24, 2007, 11:45:45 AM »

Just watched ACA's story on the end of free speech in Australia (ie how the worm was sabotaged last night), and at the end they had the phone poll results on who viewers thought won the debate. 52% said Howard, and that's from over 47,000 votes (that's half the size of the average electorate, or pretty much a whole NT electorate, and many many times the sample number in an opinion poll). That's despite the pro-Rudd worm, despite Rudd's well-rehearsed gestures, despite Howard's grumpiness. Food for thought.

It's not food for thought. People could send as many SMSs as they wanted, rang those telephone numbers as often as they wanted. It all adds up to thousands of bogus "votes".

The only winners here are the telecoms.
Logged

Truckarella

  • Post count only Fadeaway is sad enough to achieve without cheating
  • *
  • Posts: 8343
  • I thought 'jocks and jacket, that'll do.'
Re: Election debate
« Reply #23 on: October 24, 2007, 12:41:15 PM »

and the stations who usually get a cut of the sms charge in these situations.

Adi

  • Resident Giraffe
  • Fascist
  • Evil Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
Re: Election debate
« Reply #24 on: October 24, 2007, 05:23:01 PM »

It's not food for thought. People could send as many SMSs as they wanted, rang those telephone numbers as often as they wanted. It all adds up to thousands of bogus "votes".

The only winners here are the telecoms.

Who'd waste their money on voting heaps of times? I know people do for reality TV, but seriously, for politics? I wouldn't even vote once, let alone multiple times. And 47,000 is a shitload of bogus votes. I do doubt the precise veracity of the figures, don't get me wrong. But there has to be some kind of truth somewhere under all the Channel 9 crap.

In any case, I suppose my real point was not that Howard "won" the debate, but that a sample (of contentious size and of dubious reality) of public perception thought he did. Anyone who watched the debate and thought that Howard came out on top is either a committed, blinkered Liberal voter or didn't understand what was going on.
Logged
Before you criticise someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.

Pinball Neil

  • Really not getting the hint
  • ********
  • Posts: 5635
Re: Election debate
« Reply #25 on: October 24, 2007, 05:28:14 PM »

Who'd waste their money on voting heaps of times?

Who'd waste their money on voting once?
Logged
No more sleepovers on the bathroom floor.

Pinball Neil

  • Really not getting the hint
  • ********
  • Posts: 5635
Re: Election debate
« Reply #26 on: October 24, 2007, 05:31:44 PM »

Howard supporters, clearly.

Yeah, well probably the party itself too...
Logged
No more sleepovers on the bathroom floor.

Adi

  • Resident Giraffe
  • Fascist
  • Evil Overlord
  • *****
  • Posts: I am a geek!!
Re: Election debate
« Reply #27 on: October 24, 2007, 06:23:18 PM »

Just found the most amusing article about the debate so far.

Some of my favourite lines:

"Mr Howard almost looked like he was hanging on to a big, timber chastity belt strapped on to himself, so we couldn't get to him."

"he's got to be in touch with his sexuality to wear a tie like that"

and

"you're probably thinking, this guy has got to have a pretty sad life if he's sitting around counting blink rates of Kevin Rudd!"

So true. At least this guy seems a little less phony than the ostensible body language expert who so expertly analysed the body language of Mercedes Corby & thingy-whatsit on Today Tonight.
Logged
Before you criticise someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way, when you criticise them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.

Bill_Steamshovel

  • Junkie
  • ***
  • Posts: 296
Re: Election debate
« Reply #28 on: October 25, 2007, 05:19:43 PM »

Mmm, best to be cautious. Labor has trounced Howard in both the last two debates, and yet lost the elections. Although, Rudd certainly comes across as confident and capable but without the unpleasant agressiveness that was always Latham's problem.

Latham's problem is that he was decisive and confident. It came across to the general public as aggressive, because the Australian people don't want a real leader for Prime Minister. They want someone pliant and compliant, which is why Labor offered a mini-me version of Howard to combat Howard.
Logged
An open mind is like a fortress - with its gates unbarred and unguarded.
Pages: 1 [2]