MysticalMachineGun posted:

Just thought you'd be best equipped to respond to this:

quote:

Tony Abbott has unleashed a public attack on his former deputy, Julie Bishop, to accuse her of telling falsehoods.

In a new outbreak of recriminations over the leadership coup, Mr Abbott has made a four-point repudiation of the Foreign Affairs Minister and deputy Liberal leader.

The former prime minister told Fairfax Media it was "false" that Ms Bishop had warned him of a phone call where Malcolm Turnbull was making plans for a post-Abbott government seven months before he challenged for the leadership.

The call was a clear sign that Mr Turnbull, then communications minister, was considering a leadership strike against Mr Abbott.

In the February 8 call, Mr Turnbull offered Scott Morrison the treasurer's post in a future Turnbull government, as disclosed by Fairfax Media's Shirtfronted series this week.

Ms Bishop was in the same room as Mr Turnbull at the time, a silent participant in the call. The three continued to serve in the Abbott cabinet for another seven months and six days.

When Ms Bishop was asked on Channel Nine on Tuesday whether she had told Mr Abbott about the call, she responded: "Of course, of course."

But Mr Abbott said: "The claim that Julie Bishop made on Channel Nine that she told me about the conversation between Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison that she witnessed is false."

On a second point, Mr Abbott said it was not true that Ms Bishop had urged him to appoint two more women to his first cabinet.

In part two of Fairfax's Shirtfronted, Ms Bishop is said to have suggested that Marise Payne and Sussan Ley be appointed to the cabinet, but met opposition from Mr Abbott's then chief of staff, Peta Credlin, during a leadership dinner at Canberra's Ottoman restaurant soon after winning power.

But Mr Abbott told Fairfax Media: "The suggestion that Julie Bishop lobbied me to get Marise Payne and Sussan Ley into cabinet in September 2013 is false. The suggestion that Peta Credlin opposed that is also false."

Mr Abbott also took issue with two more of Ms Bishop's comments on Channel Nine.

He challenged her remark that his cabinet had held firm during the first and unsuccessful leadership spill in February.

Ms Bishop had said: "The cabinet held absolutely firm and 39 people voted for the spill, even though there was no leadership contender," Ms Bishop said.

"Tony Abbott then said that he wanted six months to turn things around and when the next spill motion came, 54 members of the party voted for a new leader. That's how I saw the situation," she said.

"I certainly was not aware of white-anting, although I'm sure that the former prime minister has a number of concerns about what went on in those last six months of his time as prime minister."

Mr Abbott said: "Julie Bishop's claim that the cabinet was solidly behind me was rendered ridiculous by the leaking that so obviously took place."

Most conspicuous was Fairfax Media's coverage of a cabinet revolt over Mr Abbott's proposed changes to citizenship laws.

Ms Bishop said that Mr Abbott was mistaken to have said that he'd been "white-anted" from within.

She said the former prime minister was undone by his own performance as leader.

Mr Abbott rejected this too: "If that's true, why has the government not changed any of its key policies?"

Finally, Mr Abbott rejected the general proposition that he might have saved his prime ministership if he'd removed the controversial Ms Credlin and his treasurer, Joe Hockey.

"The idea that Malcolm Turnbull would have been content to remain a minister if only I'd sacked Credlin and Hockey is fatuous."

quote:

Lord Monckton claimed fellow sceptic Ian Plimer​, now an emeritus professor of geology at the University of Melbourne, phoned Mr Abbott in 2009 as "the final persuader" to urge him to run against the then opposition leader Malcolm Turnbull.

quote:

“We can’t remain in denial about the massive problem within Islam,” Abbott wrote. “Islam never had its own version of the Reformation and the Enlightenment or a consequent acceptance of pluralism and the separation of church and state.

“It’s also time Australians stopped being apologetic about the values that have made our country as free, fair and prosperous as any on Earth,” he wrote. “It’s not culturally insensitive to demand loyalty to Australia and respect for western civilisation. Cultures are not all equal. We should be ready to proclaim the clear superiority of our culture to one that justifies killing people in the name of God.”

Turnbull rubbished the comments, saying the “vast majority of Muslims” were “appalled” by violent extremists such as those fighting for Islamic State.

SynthOrange posted:

:hmm:

Dude McAwesome posted:

lmao, nine times?

Anidav posted:

So he peaked during the Howard years and plummeted with the fall of One Nation.

Birdstrike posted:

Birb Katter posted:

Wait, so all it takes is length of time people are in trouble before the death toll counts? Well I'd like you to meet domestic violence because people suffer a lot longer under that and it kills way more than Monis ever did.

People probably won't give a poo poo about crocodile tears when there are obvious analogues that get ignored for the sake of agenda. hth

hooman posted:

I think the ironicat might be over "tremendous smug dickheads who not only don't know when to pick your battles but take the stupidest battle possible."

The deaths in sydney were a tragedy, Monis was a tremendous rear end in a top hat, gently caress that guy. The cynical beat up by the media which has loomed over this whole affair is loving disgusting. The exploitation of this event for capital by various groups is also disgusting. It is possible to hold all of these beliefs at once.

You can be critical of the media being shitlords about this without somehow tarnishing the reality of what happened.

As an actual point of equivalency how many memorials were there to the Hectorville siege?

hooman posted:

Do you think "unleash hell" is a fair characterisation of what happened?

I would describe two deaths as a tragedy. Be they on the road, in domestic violence or in any other circumstance. Do you think visibility actually impacts how serious the loss is?

Why do we have a road toll (cost that must be paid) but not a terrorism toll.

I think this is a tragedy but also an inevitable result of policies and culture that alienate, isolate and provide no support for the mentally ill. Just like I see domestic violence deaths as a result of policies and culture that oppresses women.

open24hours posted:

But it is?

open24hours posted:

It's a big deal for those who are affected by it, which is virtually no one. At least in this country.

open24hours posted:

Do you really want to defend Islam? I mean Islam isn't any worse than any other religion, but it's not the religion you want to be defending so much as pluralism.

open24hours posted:

I'm not sure what I said that would cause you to write this, but I never mentioned the Lindt siege, gun control, or 9/11. Radical Islam is a small problem in a world of problems that gets a ridiculously disproportionate amount of attention, which achieves nothing except to radicalise people who are sick of being harassed.

hooman posted:

Do you think Monis was a case of Radical Islam or an insane person who happened to be a Muslim?

hooman posted:

Do you think that had that doctrine not existed those attacks wouldn't have found a different target/justification?

freebooter posted:

The reason the cafe siege is on dubious grounds of "terrorism" is because Monis was mentally deranged, had no clear ideological axe to grind and was making it up as he went along. IS claimed him after the fact, but the guy was a Shia and a self-described practitioner of black magic. He would have been executed in Raqqa.

Recoome posted:

nope see it's just black and white

this guy was a brown person therefore is a terrorist because he has an arabic sounding name. QED

Birb Katter posted:

Birb Katter posted:

Wait, so she blew up her own appeal by being dumb?

quote:

She filed two appeals in October, arguing the primary judge should not have allowed the case against her to proceed.

She also claimed Labor leaders, including Opposition Leader Bill Shorten, had been working against her and that documents in the case had been destroyed, leaving "gaping holes" in the evidence.

But the HSU filed an objection to competency in both appeals and they were upheld by the court.

The HSU argued that Ms Jackson had no standing to bring the appeals as she was bankrupt.

It also claimed she had not sought or been granted leave to appeal, and in part of her appeal she had failed to specify the grounds on which she was appealing.

The court found these objections should be upheld and the appeal was dismissed as incompetent.

A Good Username posted:

NSW state government has found the best way to combat drug use - memes.

http://www.stonersloth.com.au/

quote:

Cyclists in New South Wales will need to carry photo ID and fines for certain offences will more than quadruple to $425 under new laws announced by the state’s roads minister, Duncan Gay.

Fines for cycling offences, currently standardised at $71, will be increased for not wearing a helmet (to $319), running a red light ($425), riding dangerously ($425), holding on to a moving vehicle ($319) and not stopping at a children’s or pedestrian crossing ($425). The fine for not having ID is $106.

Vehicles travelling more than 60km/h will need to give cyclists one-and-a-half metres room or pay a $319 fine and lose two demerit points.

The changes on traffic light and pedestrian crossing offences bring fines for cyclists into line with those for car drivers.

quote:

The advertising agency behind the controversial "Stoner Sloth" anti-marijuana videos, which cost taxpayers half a million dollars, has hit back at criticism, saying the campaign's message is completely lost on adults.

After a week of relentless ridicule, Saatchi & Saatchi (S&S) has stepped out in defence of the NSW government's latest anti-drugs initiative, which it created.

The global creative firm described the $500,000 budget as a "moderate spend in advertising terms" which has generated a "significant return on investment and involvement" for its client.

S&S also took a swipe at those fuelling a social media backlash, arguing the concept was never intended to be viewed through their eyes.

"The videos we created were designed as part of a preventative campaign specifically for teens; the audience is not for adults or long-term cannabis users," said a spokesman.

"Two different creative approaches were pre-tested by independent researchers among the teenage target audience, which verified the potential efficacy for this campaign."

Launched last week under the slogan "you're worse on weed", the campaign warns teens of the dangers of regular marijuana use by portraying those who smoke it as grumbling, disconnected "stoner sloths".

It has since generated 4 million views on Facebook and YouTube as well as a further 30,000 Facebook likes.

Meanwhile, international news agencies from the BBC to Time magazine,have reported on the campaign. It also sparked some 25 parody videos that have been viewed almost 100,000 times.

"The videos have truly gone viral," said the S&S spokesman who added: "The unexpected global media attention is now providing a platform for parents and teenagers all over the world to have 'the conversation' about cannabis in an engaging way."

Another creative agency behind the project, UM, which oversaw media buy, strategy and social media, is also interpreting the "strong viewership and engagement" as a success.

"While it's early days, our research shows the majority of negative comments are not from our target audience, which is teenagers," said a UM spokesperson.

Fairfax Media sought comment from neutral experts in the advertising industry.

"The problem is that whenever a campaign is sent up and greeted with howls of derisive laughter, you've got a major problem," said award-winning advertising writer Jane Caro, who added the target audience would be "completely aware" that the sloth concept had been rubbished.

She pointed to the infamous Roads and Traffic Authority 'Little Pinkie' adverts – which belittled men who speed – as a campaign geared towards young people that "genuinely worked"

"It worked because it took risks. It was a little bit rude," she said. "Whereas this feels parental. It is trying to be safe. You can see how inoffensive it is trying to be. And the problem with being inoffensive is, it becomes lame."

But marketing and advertising consultant Toby Ralph, who has worked on numerous large health education campaigns, believes the "mudslide of criticism" has been largely unjustified.

"My opinion, for what it is worth, is that it is a good campaign. All this is doing is saying that some heavy weed smokers can become boring as bats---, and I think it does it well."

Matt Noffs, meanwhile, whose Noffs Foundation specialises in drug treatment for youngsters, described the mockery as "fair feedback" from a wider community who viewed the videos as a "waste of money".

"For less than the cost of this campaign, we run street universities that help hundreds of kids off drugs," he said, adding: "The biggest issue I have with this campaign is that it stigmatises children with drug issues."

Cartoon posted:

________________________________________/
That really cool and in touch middle aged advertising exec from the Gruen report or some poo poo.