I don't like to use the Hate word but if I was to hate anyone it would be that Lambie woman.
I wish she would shut up and fade away. What an assault on the senses she is.
+100. She's an embarrassment of the worst order. Even the feminazis are unlikely to offer support to this awful woman. Yuk!I used to think Paul Keating was dead right when he described the Senate as "unrepresentative swill". But Lambie has successfully rendered that colourful phrase totally inappropriate. It's much too complimentary for her. She is far, far worse than unrepresentative swill.
So right. Just imagine if Tony Abbott had made such a remark!!!! (were he single, of course.)Imagine the outcry if a male politician made comments equivalent to Jacqui Lambie's on his wish-list for a partner.
After 11 years on the shelf, Jacqui Lambie's looking for a man.
Well hung and lots of money are minimum requirements.
Knowing when not to speak (which is all the time) is also up there.
Must also be a keen gardener.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...-radio-station-heart-1073-20140722-3ccr2.html
That would come down to Clive's abilities with the powered garden implements. We know what the Greens views are on slashing the natural environment.For a fleeting moment I thought that big Clive himself might be her perfect match. After all, he has lots of money, he is well hung girth-wise and the two of them are already in bed together. As for his gardening habits I'm not so sure but his recent mixing with the green fairies must count for something.
And that's where the political relationship between those two will ultimately come to grief.However, he fails miserably on the third criterion. Big Clive never knows when to stop talking.
I hope you continue to find enjoyment when the collective decisions of the PUP, given that they hold the balance of power in the Senate, mean you will be faced with a budget ten years down the track which is one hell of a lot worse than that to which you are so objecting now.I'm personally just finding enjoyment in it all. The thought police don't like her but so what.
I hope you continue to find enjoyment when the collective decisions of the PUP, given that they hold the balance of power in the Senate, mean you will be faced with a budget ten years down the track which is one hell of a lot worse than that to which you are so objecting now.
Perhaps we may get a government who takes from those who can afford to pay and doesn't splash money out on silly parental leave schemes and doesn't throw away revenue like the carbon tax.
Lets hope we don't get any more hare brain schemes like pink bats and over priced school halls.
And we don't need anymore $900 loans from that same government who splashed money around like drunken sailors.....nothing is free......we now have to pay it back over the next ten years.
Socialism is good until they run out of other peoples money.
Those were GFC minimisation schemes. If there is no GFC threat no government would contemplate such things in times of fiscal deficits.
I don't know a single person who supports Mr Abbott's PPL, but remember that it's paid for not by the ordinary taxpayer but a specific tax on some big businesses.Perhaps we may get a government who takes from those who can afford to pay and doesn't splash money out on silly parental leave schemes and doesn't throw away revenue like the carbon tax.
I don't know a single person who supports Mr Abbott's PPL, but remember that it's paid for not by the ordinary taxpayer but a specific tax on some big businesses.
The scheme, which has been fully costed by the independent Parliamentary Budget Office, will involve a net additional cost to taxpayers of $6.1 billion over the forward estimates. That's after Mr Abbott hits 3000 of Australia's largest companies with a 1.5 per cent tax levy to pay for the scheme.
http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/ne...ity-leave-scheme/story-fni0cx12-1226699076504
The carbon tax was an unreasonable impost on business and households, making Australia uncompetitive in the global environment. You know that. You also know that it was forced on Gillard in order to secure the Greens' support. Had she not needed the Greens there indeed would have no carbon tax under the government she led.
Really?Not quite true, as I believe I have pointed out before, but will do so again
According the Parliamentary Budget Office the scheme will cost over $5 billion a year when it is fully up and running. But that cost will be offset by abolishing Labor's existing paid parental leave scheme that pays women 18 weeks leave at the minimum wage. There's also some savings around Family Tax Benefit A and B payments that would not occur if women were on baby leave.
There would be no double dipping by public servants who already have access to existing schemes and that would save money too. So once those savings are made the scheme would cost around $3.5 billion a year. That cost would be fully accounted for according to Mr Abbott by a levy on big business to pay for the scheme.
Really?
From the very article to which you linked:
Really?
From the very article to which you linked:
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?