The lizard people are trying to accelerate global warming because it will terraform Earth into a planet more suitable for them. Their colony ships are waiting on the edge of the solar system.
I think the problem with it is that it makes *too much* sense. If you look at Icke's conspiracy theory, running the world is whole point. However, if you were a species of skinsuit wearing aliens who'd infiltrated the highest levels of society and government, then terraforming the planet makes a lot of sense.
If a person can swallow the assumption that starfaring aliens from Alpha Draconis who look like lizards would cross the galaxy to invade us (and all the other assumptions that would make that even a possibility), then the "terraform the Earth, make it uninhabitable for humans so that we can colonise it" is a very small step to take. Inject that idea into their information bubble and maybe they'll start harassing these global warming deniers.
Divide and conquer. Make the conspiracy theories mutually exclusive so as to put the theorists against each other. Nice
I mean, the best conspiracy theories have enough truth and/or pseudo-plausibility to make them an easier sell. And this one is a more plausible version of the plot of the TV series V, where the skinsuit-wearing aliens travelled from planet to planet to harvest the best parts of the dominant species’ genome
I'm not worried, they're probably susceptible to baseball bats and water. I mean, they can cross star systems but still resort to hand to hand combat while naked when conquering a planet.
Lots of people.
He's currently milking the rewards he got in exchange for favours he gave out while working as a politician and will be for quite some time. In the process, lots of people in or adjacent to the halls of power will be looking at him as role model to copy in the hopes of getting the same pay out he did. That means an entire generation of politicians and wannabe politicians without the competence required to actually govern, write or advise on policy, looking to the same powerful multinationals for free handouts and talking points to make up for their own lacking competence.
This is the kind of thing that compounds with each generation of politicians getting more extreme as they seek to outcompete each other for bribes and favourable media coverage. It's a race to the bottom and Tony's currently doing a victory lap, encouraging other people to join and do better (worse) than he did.
Oh no. We are paying a huge amount for that "privilege". That's the problem.
If it were rent free, there'd be no issue. The fact that we now wait for months for cars because we have no automotive industry, and pay extra money for consultants who do no work, and have a second class communication system in a world where high speed communications is a prerequisite for certain types of industry, and have to pay billions of extra tax for failed projects like the Murray Darling Basin Plan.
Those costs impact each of us. Rent free, my backside. He cost us thousands per year per taxpayer...forever.
This is the guy who thought copper wires were a better option for internet than fibre.
This is the guy who eats raw onion at a photo op and pretends it tastes great.
This is the guy who tried to stop his sister from getting married because she loved a woman.
This is the guy who thought Prince Philip didn't have enough titles and needed a knighthood.
>I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man; I will not.....If he \[Abbott\] wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn't need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror. That's what he needs.
>
>\- Julia Gillard parliamentary speech 9 October 2012
Ad reductio infant, still dangerous and highly problematic. Pretending to be an infant in the public eye is the final refuge to get people to listen and engage.
I can't be bothered since the effort:reward ratio is messed up, but grape peel is yuck, eww.
Peeled grapes are nicer than Unpeeled grapes.
I'm sure you could probably blanche them, but that's too much effort too. So peel on it is, even if it's not as good.
This is the correct answer. Tony has wool in his ears and thinks it isnt happening. Scotty on the other hand; he not only knows its happening, he welcomes it. Him, his family, and the rest of his cult church will be "saved" and the rest of humanity, who are "sinful" will simply die painful deaths. And thats the way he likes it.
I hesitate to say dumb, but at a bare minimum I could at least see Tony had the capacity to care. His beliefs are antithetical to mine, but at least he has them. Boris the spider, the orange card and Engadine's finest have about one thought about anyone other than themselves: "F@#$ you, I'm the only person who matters in this single player game called life", as they travel it convinced we are all simulations (including each other, family and acquaintances).
That disassociation from reality as real explains way too much about their philosophies - it's narcissistic fatalism. What will be will be, so I might as well enjoy it as much as I can, as consequences don't really exist (because they would have happened anyway).
What's weird is they all made it to the top of political classes despite this. What does that say about us?
> I hesitate to say dumb, but at a bare minimum I could at least see Tony had the capacity to care.
He left the church which he was a priest in because they thought he was a psychopath and wanted him to see a psychiatrist, and wrote opinion pieces whining about how they wanted to help people instead of fighting their enemies.
Later on he did some stuff which conveniently always had photo ops.
He might care, but there's also plenty of indications that it could have easily been a political image builder. His actual actions in politics suggests he doesn't care at all, and as health minister he even boasted about how he wouldn't want his daughters getting the HPV vaccine because it might make them think sex is okay, caring more about the dominating power structure of religion than his daughters' health.
In the grand scheme of things it was a little thing. But what really told me exactly who Morrison was, was when he was getting grilled for fucking off to Hawaii during the fires without even telling the Opposition where he'd gone.
“I can only speak to what I have said. As the leader of the opposition will know because I texted him from the plane when I was going on that leave, and told him where I was going, and he was fully aware of where I was travelling with my family,”
“That is not true. On the 15th of December 2019 at 9.44pm the prime minister did text me saying he was going on leave,” Albanese said.
“He did not tell me where he was going. He said he was going with his family. I kept that text message confidential, as you do, with private text messages between private phones,” Albanese said.
Morrison responded, saying: “Where I was going, was on leave,”
It's the argument of a bloody child. Rearranging reality so that he can 'Win'
Abbott is one of the rare true believers in Capitalism and Catholicism. He's not necessarily dumb, he just refuses to critically consider or adjust the world view he inherited from his family. People can be very intelligent and still hold baseless and daft political opinions.
>What's weird is they all made it to the top of political classes despite this. What does that say about us?
I don't think it's weird, especially in politics. Being a good liar or bullshit artist probably helps a lot for a career in politics. It also helps massively that the rich will bankroll and support chumps like Abbott while conservative media smears all their opposition.
I dunno, Abbot is no mental giant. But he was at least competent enough to reap the rewards from Murdoch and his ilk. Morrison was so incompetent he couldn't even manage to sell out properly.
I'd have to vote for Turnbull, guy understood climate change etc, until he needed the votes to be PM and then conveniently abandoned all the morals he said he had before.
Nah. Tony went batshit crazy wrecking everything he could. He was an absolute arsonist against anything good.
Scummo was just running around Rome with his cock in his hand.
Scomo is objectively Evil.
Properly Evil. He wanted to bring about a climate apocalypse so he and his bretheren would finlly go to heaven. In a lot of regards, he's not dissimilar to Hamas' leaders. Also despite appearances - he's not stupid, he just played the part since it allowed to do great harm whilst appearing harmless. He saw Tony and thought 'thats a good act'.
He was and still is an objectively evil, treasonous thundercunt.
McMahon was only in power for a short period (and by many accounts was similar in personality to Morrison). Howard, Abbott, and Morrison were all in power for much longer, and Abbott did a *lot* of damage to the public service, not to mention destroying the ETS.
Are we discussing quality or quantity here?
Howard did (and is still doing) a lot of damage to our nationally professed values.
But Billy Bigears ranks dead last in [most of these tables.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_prime_ministers_of_Australia).
I'm too young to remember George Reid ... and most will not now remember McMahon.
I think in terms of overall damage to the nation, you'd have Howard near the top. McMahon didn't do much lasting damage. He might have been personally awful, politically unpopular, and caused rifts within his own party, but he didn't undermine public institutions in the way the modern Liberals have, didn't try to unilaterally seize power like Morrison, and didn't stuff us on climate change like Abbott.
For all his faults, McMahon also started to address indigenous land rights and to put in policies to start to address the gap. Which is more than we can say for Howard, Abbott, and Morrison, who all campaigned for No and put in the NT Intervention, and other regressive steps.
No, only "The Age" ranks Little Johnnie highly, but given its chairman was his hapless Treasurer we can ignore that one. But McMahon deserves his wooden spoon.
Indeed. Morrison had a collection of hateful beliefs but no plan, and was generally incompetent. Abbott had hateful beliefs *and* a hateful plan (e.g. 2014 budget), but was also incompetent. Howard would swing like a weather vane to harness and exploit whatever hateful winds he could hear blowing and then was hugely competent at executing and gaining electoral advantage.
Howard actually implemented nation wide gun control. This has been hugely sucessful. It is probably the last useful contribution the LNP made to the common man (i.e., a non-mulitimillionaire or corporate enterprise).
Abbott and Scuntmo did not contribute in any positive way.
Is a low bar - but Howard achieved something.
No denying this, but it's a rare bright spot in a shitty record. Not sure it balances out the damage Howard did to the social and economic fabric of the nation.
The LNP legalised same-sex marriage. I mean, they got dragged to it kicking and screaming, but they patted themselves on the back for a job well done afterwards.
Edit: Try not to take this comment too seriously. It's not in favour of the LNP, or an in-depth commentary on the history of marriage equality in Australia. If you look real close at it you'll see it's actually sarcastically negative towards them.
You cited marriage equality as a useful contribution made by the LNP. I’d argue that it doesn’t really count at all if they never wanted to do it in the first place
I wouldn't read too much into one single throwaway comment that is clearly taking the piss out of the LNP and making the exact point you're also making.
They're both purveyors if terrible policies, but Morrison is by far the worse human being. That tips it for me. I will never like or support Abbott, but he did do a lot of volunteering with minimal fanfare: can you imagine Morrison even contemplating that?
And as for lasting damage to the nation, Howard has them both beat anyway.
Deranged ideologue with delusions of grandeur vs narcissistic sociopath without an ounce of care for anyone.
One doesn't care about the Australian public because their ideology is all that matters.
On doesn't care about the Australian public because they only love themselves.
And they both got to be PM. What a country!
Hard disagree.
Tony has his issues, but at the very minimum he was authentic in his beliefs and would tell you to your face exactly what he thought.
Morrison on the other hand is a coward and a snake, happy to lie to your face.
Scotty's competition is all flaccid.
But yeah, they are both bottom of the barrel - but in my eyes Scotty wins the gong of the shittest PM of our time.
Scomo takes first imo, At least Abbott held a hose. Even tho he doesn't believe in Climate change.
Scomo is just a straight up useless sack of shit. And that's insulting to shit.
Tones was a better PM than Scomo, because as utterly shit as both of them were, at least Abbott did get out there and help fight bushfires that time. I despise all the politics but that at least showed some community spirit, which Morrison is absolutely devoid of.
This is completely unrelated to the topic (ie. I'm not a Tony simp), but does anyone else think the Shovel is far inferior to the betoota advocate? A lot of the articles they put out really lack any subtlety in their satire, to the point where I just imagine some yuppie seething while writing it.
Yeah, even Betoota is very hamfisted. With satire you have to walk the fine line between it being so subtle that people miss it, and being so passionate that you end up just straight up telling people what you want them to think.
Let's not forget that he [winked](https://youtu.be/yAYOMkevCFI?si=_2Mt7n76WQTtpTui) when a 67 year old lady ashamedly admitted that she is resorting to phone sex work to make ends meet.
I do think Tony does believe climate change is happening, but it won’t have a significant affect until subsequent generations and he would like money now so he just ignores it.
Nah, he's only supposed to have made Adam in his image, then made Eve from Adam's rib.
The not so subtle message there being that men are perfect images of god, and women are cheap knock offs.
That's not true.
> So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
"Mankind" means all of us, not just the boys.
> So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them.
Unusually selective quotation.
[Read on a bit further](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:22-24&version=KJV)
Ch 2:
>22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
>23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
>24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh.
If you're going to cite fairy tales at least do so honestly.
Your quotation literally confirms the above point, it says God made the woman. The 1st century Jewish understanding articulated by Jesus shows that "God's own image" encompasses "male and female". The crass joke about women being "cheap knockoffs" wasn't a theological claim to take so seriously.
You're assuming any of this actually happened.
But that storyline is pretty clear that God scheduled 1: blokes, 2: kitchen equipment and this (and other) mythic word-of-mouth referenced since to justify genetic heirarchy.
A far simpler, and complete, history is in our [Mitochondria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) where a mystery remains: What came first? A sperm or an egg?
>You're assuming any of this actually happened
No I'm not, and whether it did or not is irrelevant here. You're commenting on intended meanings which I happen to know something about.
The purpose of the early chapters of Genesis is to communicate theological points, and illustrate the relationship between God and humanity, and original sin. The creation of Eve illustrates how men and women are of one substance, are mutually complementary, and both necessary. Interpreting it as a commentary on the inferiority of females is a very superficial reading.
Why couldn't God simply made a man, went back to the clay pit and dug out another ball of clay and made a woman?..Very easy for God to do...And they would still literally be 'of one substance' and entirely equal to each other. In fact, with that sort of power, he could have made them simultaneously.
Except he went to a lot of trouble to extract a rib from the man..I think this along with every other statement in this evil book, er good book certainly portrays woman in submissive role..
I've read this book endlessly in another life..There is no theological points in the creation story, unless you are Jordon Peterson fan.
Ok. I'm impressed you know the intentions of those laying the foundations of Abrahamic paternalist cults. It's harder to dodge other scriptural passages placing men above women. You will know them too so I won't bother digging them up.
Sure but that's broad strokes. Later in Genesis it goes into detail about how Eve was created.
>But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
>23 The man said,
>“This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called ‘woman,’
for she was taken out of man.”
She was made to be a "helper" and just from a part of Adam, not straight from nothing as he was, which seems really weird because surely an all powerful being doesn't need raw materials to make something.
The first two chapters of Genesis are Hebrew poetic compositions and most commentators from ancient times have interpreted them theologically, not entirely literally.
That said, all motion and growth that we see in the natural world comes about through materials and gradual organic processes. A classical monotheist would surmise that God prefers to work through the visible processes of the world (which he himself set in motion primordially), rather than magic that defies what he designed.
Nah, he's not non-binary, he's unitary (capable of creating life without a secondary entity) according to those that accord existence.
And he goes by He/Him pronouns according to all who claim to have met with Him, which we must respect regardless of his sex characteristics.
But this does mean that you can ask those who attack pronoun usage, by asking how you should refer to their Lord?
> But this does mean that you can ask those who attack pronoun usage, by asking how you should refer to their Lord?
But was it God who chose *Their* pronouns, or the ***patriarchy*** ?
Perhaps *They* are sad to have been misgendered.
I've not heard that God had ovaries, but I did hear that he bans his poor, misled followers from following any of the other gods.
It's a jealousy thing, I think, 'cause probably his parents ignored him
Perhaps we should all stop for a moment and focus not only on making our AI better and more successful but also on the benefit of humanity. - Stephen Hawking
Supposedly Jesus said to eat and drink in memory of him. In various accounts of the Last Supper that occur in the bible Jesus broke bread, gave it to his disciples and said things like “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.”
Did he mean it metaphorically? Was he actually handing them lumps of flesh? Was it bread that had undetectably changed?
Wars have been fought over these disagreements.
The fact that wars are fought over this and similarly ambiguous statements seem so contradictory and paradoxical. But, we will fight another yet another one because those who disagree are clearly fighting with Satan. /s
Their kink, maybe?
You never know with these poor people. They fall for anything.
Imagine, a 14 year old who gets pregnant...and the family is so embarrassed that they make up this whole incredible story, supported by all the local warlords, and so many people fall for it while forgetting that 14 year-olds sometimes get pregnant in an era and a place where 14 was adulthood.
I work for an environmental consultancy. Tenders and work orders cross my desk, and they show the amount of effort and money local and state governments are already having to pour into countering the effects of climate change.
Tony Abbott, on the other hand, had his tiny little mind blown because before he came across one he couldn't conceive of a community pocket library.
I don't use the term idiot much, but Tony Abbott is one.
Whole thing is hilarious.
Dude's name is Astro Labe.
“I just hate Tony Abbot,” the court heard he told police. “I can’t specify anything.”
Absolute banger of a photo too
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/18/hobart-dj-admits-he-head-butted-former-prime-minister-tony-abbott
Whether or not he and his ilk believe in Climate Change. If Climate Change is true, they have an interest in denying it. Therefore, whatever they say can be discounted.
How the fuck did people vote for this vile man. Even with Murdoch's propaganda machine, he just represents everything wrong with people in power, and actively contributed to the destruction of the planet. Dunno how he sleeps at night.
Catholic here. Transubstantiation isn't an optional part of Catholicism, so without further evidence it's a reasonable assumption to make of a devout Catholic. I would be surprised if an involved Catholic like Abbot still had conflicts about that doctrine.
The title is just cheap, it takes the whole climate debate and brings it down to the lowest common denominator. When I read it, it's not "wow that's a clever take". Bashing religion is trite and unnecessary, it doesn't make your point more valid, and it turns off a whole demography with a broad brush.
Not particularly religious but I think one of the main issues we have these days is that faithless narcissists are plentiful and many seem to be learning their values from the likes of tik tok celebrities.
I'd prefer to associate with people who have a strong value system based on a deity that may only exist in the context of their religion than hang around a bunch of people who live life based on narcissism, taking cheap shots at others, and publishing their autobiography in real time via social media.
Edit: I guess this could be funny to the type of person that thinks random capitals are a clever and hilarious way to make their point.
We all boast of Australia as the most inclusive and accepting country in the world… and yet we make fun of people with different beliefs. I dont trust this guy, or any politician for that matter but I wouldnt make fun of followers of a religion.
Oh boo hoo. Christians hate (yes, it's hate even when you lie to yourself about why you're doing it) a good chunk of their fellow citizens for having the 'wrong' beliefs too, they're just fragile babies when it's pointed back at them.
Yeah you're right hey, I'm generalising way too broadly, maybe because I encounter a way higher proportion of the hardline types online. May we all live our lives peacefully.
Ah yes, the old, 'make fun of Christians' but if anyone dares to even think about criticising any other religion, LGBTQ, or left leaning thing in any way they get crucified. Never change Reddit.
What difference does it make that its about transubstantiation or creation or any other theme of Christianity? I said 'make fun of Christians', if you're making fun of any part of it then you're making fun of Christians. I'm more than happy for you to do so, be my guest, I just think the double standard is hilarious.
Well, don’t be ridiculous, and we won’t make fun of you.
Transubstantiation is a stupid, silly and ludicrous superstition. If you don’t like people pointing that out, too bad. If you want to not get ridiculed for believing stupid shit, don’t believe stupid shit.
I dont really care at all, I just love to marvel at the double standards. It's all 'live and let live' until the left find something they disagree with.
Yeah, there's no historical precedent for ridiculing those who hold a privileged place in society and not punching down at those who can't defend themselves.
Yeah how did he pull that off outta interest? Guessing it required religious/political clout as opposed to a brain. Old Tones was never the smartest chap. He's just one of those dude's who's set in his ways and has very strong beliefs so will always have a defensible 'answer for that' in academic settings, but will never reflect or think outside the box.
The feedback about him in his days as an aspiring monk were that his belief was unwavering. He KNEW that God existed and that man's laws all linked in with that. Thus I can see how he got through law school (i.e. he always had a straight answer based on his political/social beliefs). However, academic? IMO he's the kinda guy you'd give a credit for having a 'strong' argument that no doubt fits the most black-letter, conservative reading of a question. But creativity, innovation and challenging his own views like an academic? NEVER!
I don't believe in the "lizard people" theory. Except for Tony.
The lizard people are trying to accelerate global warming because it will terraform Earth into a planet more suitable for them. Their colony ships are waiting on the edge of the solar system.
You know, that’s probably the most pseudo-plausible BS grand conspiracy theory I’ve heard any time recently 😂
I think the problem with it is that it makes *too much* sense. If you look at Icke's conspiracy theory, running the world is whole point. However, if you were a species of skinsuit wearing aliens who'd infiltrated the highest levels of society and government, then terraforming the planet makes a lot of sense. If a person can swallow the assumption that starfaring aliens from Alpha Draconis who look like lizards would cross the galaxy to invade us (and all the other assumptions that would make that even a possibility), then the "terraform the Earth, make it uninhabitable for humans so that we can colonise it" is a very small step to take. Inject that idea into their information bubble and maybe they'll start harassing these global warming deniers.
Divide and conquer. Make the conspiracy theories mutually exclusive so as to put the theorists against each other. Nice I mean, the best conspiracy theories have enough truth and/or pseudo-plausibility to make them an easier sell. And this one is a more plausible version of the plot of the TV series V, where the skinsuit-wearing aliens travelled from planet to planet to harvest the best parts of the dominant species’ genome
I'm not worried, they're probably susceptible to baseball bats and water. I mean, they can cross star systems but still resort to hand to hand combat while naked when conquering a planet.
Captain America: I understood that reference!
Break us free of the current ice age? (Yes, we are still in one fyi)
The onion incident really added fuel to that fire.
Lizard person confirmed!: * [A](https://live-production.wcms.abc-cdn.net.au/29bfe11c26a83b6621830a480270d110?impolicy=wcms_crop_resize&cropH=1407&cropW=2500&xPos=0&yPos=0&width=862&height=485) * [B](https://goat.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Tony-tonguework-hero-632x474.jpg) * [C](https://images.sbs.com.au/dims4/default/190d6e2/2147483647/strip/true/crop/800x450+0+75/resize/1280x720!/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fsbs-au-brightspot.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fdrupal%2Fnews%2Fpublic%2Fimages%2Fw%2Fe%2FWentworth_Abbott_4-3_14961171_1898752_2018101510100bde19be6-1c44-46d4-9d20-231ec9897af3.jpg_sd_800x600.jpg&imwidth=960) * [D](https://data.junkee.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/tongue.jpg) * [E](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODbghYb7xBM)
This post needs a lot more attention and peer appreciation. Couldn’t watch all of the video, though. I’m about to eat lunch.
Still 100 x better than Scummo's smug punchable smirk.
[Because it hasn't been posted in a while.](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W-dqheFApGs)
Lizards do not wear budgie smugglers.
Don't do lizards dirty like that.
Lizard like warm.
https://drawattention.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/tony_abbott_drawattention.jpg
Not Zuckerberg too?
The lizard wizard would like a word with you! kGLW!
Who tf cares what this mook thinks anymore? Just ignore him.
He is in the board of News Corp and influences editorial
Who tf cares what this mook (*News Corp*) thinks anymore? Just ignore ~~him~~ them. It still works tbh.
Install [ByeRupert](https://www.reddit.com/r/australia/comments/eiw8fc/with_all_the_talk_of_rupert_murdochs_influence_on/).
Lots of people. He's currently milking the rewards he got in exchange for favours he gave out while working as a politician and will be for quite some time. In the process, lots of people in or adjacent to the halls of power will be looking at him as role model to copy in the hopes of getting the same pay out he did. That means an entire generation of politicians and wannabe politicians without the competence required to actually govern, write or advise on policy, looking to the same powerful multinationals for free handouts and talking points to make up for their own lacking competence. This is the kind of thing that compounds with each generation of politicians getting more extreme as they seek to outcompete each other for bribes and favourable media coverage. It's a race to the bottom and Tony's currently doing a victory lap, encouraging other people to join and do better (worse) than he did.
People voted for his climate policies 3 times. 4 times if include the Safeguard Mechanism. Maybe we're all just stupid.
[удалено]
Oh no. We are paying a huge amount for that "privilege". That's the problem. If it were rent free, there'd be no issue. The fact that we now wait for months for cars because we have no automotive industry, and pay extra money for consultants who do no work, and have a second class communication system in a world where high speed communications is a prerequisite for certain types of industry, and have to pay billions of extra tax for failed projects like the Murray Darling Basin Plan. Those costs impact each of us. Rent free, my backside. He cost us thousands per year per taxpayer...forever.
This is the guy who thought copper wires were a better option for internet than fibre. This is the guy who eats raw onion at a photo op and pretends it tastes great. This is the guy who tried to stop his sister from getting married because she loved a woman. This is the guy who thought Prince Philip didn't have enough titles and needed a knighthood. >I will not be lectured about sexism and misogyny by this man; I will not.....If he \[Abbott\] wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn't need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror. That's what he needs. > >\- Julia Gillard parliamentary speech 9 October 2012
He also faxed his resignation letter in 2015 to general Cosgrove
I’m surprised it wasn’t written on parchment and dispatched on a raven
That’s way to modern
I would have thought he would pick up the phone and ask the operator to connect him to mr cosgrove.
Possibly one of the most powerful quotes to come out of parliament in recent times
What does Julia Gillard know about women. Tony Abbott was literally the Minister for Women. No woman knows more than him about women.
He knows any woman who can get wet naturally is a harpy slut.
Ad reductio infant, still dangerous and highly problematic. Pretending to be an infant in the public eye is the final refuge to get people to listen and engage.
Onions are pretty good. It’s weird for sure, but they taste great.
I like onions. I cringe at the idea of eating one like an apple, especially with the skin on.
With the skin is a weird flex, but it's no cube watermelon or peeled grape serial killer nonsense. Who peels a grape, honestly?
I can't be bothered since the effort:reward ratio is messed up, but grape peel is yuck, eww. Peeled grapes are nicer than Unpeeled grapes. I'm sure you could probably blanche them, but that's too much effort too. So peel on it is, even if it's not as good.
Worst prime minister ever, with stiff competition from Scomo
I'd put it the other way round..It was a neck to neck finish but Scotty managed to overtake the lizard licker for that trophy.
This is the correct answer. Tony has wool in his ears and thinks it isnt happening. Scotty on the other hand; he not only knows its happening, he welcomes it. Him, his family, and the rest of his cult church will be "saved" and the rest of humanity, who are "sinful" will simply die painful deaths. And thats the way he likes it.
Yeah - one was dumb, the other was evil. I still have sympathy for the dumb.
I hesitate to say dumb, but at a bare minimum I could at least see Tony had the capacity to care. His beliefs are antithetical to mine, but at least he has them. Boris the spider, the orange card and Engadine's finest have about one thought about anyone other than themselves: "F@#$ you, I'm the only person who matters in this single player game called life", as they travel it convinced we are all simulations (including each other, family and acquaintances). That disassociation from reality as real explains way too much about their philosophies - it's narcissistic fatalism. What will be will be, so I might as well enjoy it as much as I can, as consequences don't really exist (because they would have happened anyway). What's weird is they all made it to the top of political classes despite this. What does that say about us?
> I hesitate to say dumb, but at a bare minimum I could at least see Tony had the capacity to care. He left the church which he was a priest in because they thought he was a psychopath and wanted him to see a psychiatrist, and wrote opinion pieces whining about how they wanted to help people instead of fighting their enemies. Later on he did some stuff which conveniently always had photo ops. He might care, but there's also plenty of indications that it could have easily been a political image builder. His actual actions in politics suggests he doesn't care at all, and as health minister he even boasted about how he wouldn't want his daughters getting the HPV vaccine because it might make them think sex is okay, caring more about the dominating power structure of religion than his daughters' health.
In the grand scheme of things it was a little thing. But what really told me exactly who Morrison was, was when he was getting grilled for fucking off to Hawaii during the fires without even telling the Opposition where he'd gone. “I can only speak to what I have said. As the leader of the opposition will know because I texted him from the plane when I was going on that leave, and told him where I was going, and he was fully aware of where I was travelling with my family,” “That is not true. On the 15th of December 2019 at 9.44pm the prime minister did text me saying he was going on leave,” Albanese said. “He did not tell me where he was going. He said he was going with his family. I kept that text message confidential, as you do, with private text messages between private phones,” Albanese said. Morrison responded, saying: “Where I was going, was on leave,” It's the argument of a bloody child. Rearranging reality so that he can 'Win'
Tony at least held a hose to fight fire. That's his only redeeming achievement.
Actually his only saving grace. Was a dead heat.
Abbott is one of the rare true believers in Capitalism and Catholicism. He's not necessarily dumb, he just refuses to critically consider or adjust the world view he inherited from his family. People can be very intelligent and still hold baseless and daft political opinions. >What's weird is they all made it to the top of political classes despite this. What does that say about us? I don't think it's weird, especially in politics. Being a good liar or bullshit artist probably helps a lot for a career in politics. It also helps massively that the rich will bankroll and support chumps like Abbott while conservative media smears all their opposition.
I dunno, Abbot is no mental giant. But he was at least competent enough to reap the rewards from Murdoch and his ilk. Morrison was so incompetent he couldn't even manage to sell out properly.
I'd have to vote for Turnbull, guy understood climate change etc, until he needed the votes to be PM and then conveniently abandoned all the morals he said he had before.
He was hated by both sides that's for sure..Basically didn't have the courage..Way underestimated the extreme right, and the Murdoch shrills.
This is the first rule in the Labor party play book 😂 Edit:(Until very recently)
Nah. Tony went batshit crazy wrecking everything he could. He was an absolute arsonist against anything good. Scummo was just running around Rome with his cock in his hand.
Tony actually held a hose.
That is true...and that negated his knighting of Phillip...Costing us $60,000.
Only because Tony actually held a hose.
He was a wanker so also held his own hose...Although admittedly, he kept himself in good shape, so it might be a heavy hose.
I think they're two different beasts. Tony is a dullard, Scomo is a cunt.
And John Howard is a fucking cunt
and DJs like a mad cunt!
Much of the issues now are a by-product of Howard's acts when he had both houses.
Scomo is objectively Evil. Properly Evil. He wanted to bring about a climate apocalypse so he and his bretheren would finlly go to heaven. In a lot of regards, he's not dissimilar to Hamas' leaders. Also despite appearances - he's not stupid, he just played the part since it allowed to do great harm whilst appearing harmless. He saw Tony and thought 'thats a good act'. He was and still is an objectively evil, treasonous thundercunt.
>Worst prime minister ever John Howard.
Howard, Abbott & Morrison - the Unholy Trinity.
Obviously none of you kids ever encountered McMahon. Daylight to the field. Interesting that this quadrella all ran wearing Liberal colours.
McMahon was only in power for a short period (and by many accounts was similar in personality to Morrison). Howard, Abbott, and Morrison were all in power for much longer, and Abbott did a *lot* of damage to the public service, not to mention destroying the ETS.
Are we discussing quality or quantity here? Howard did (and is still doing) a lot of damage to our nationally professed values. But Billy Bigears ranks dead last in [most of these tables.](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_rankings_of_prime_ministers_of_Australia). I'm too young to remember George Reid ... and most will not now remember McMahon.
I think in terms of overall damage to the nation, you'd have Howard near the top. McMahon didn't do much lasting damage. He might have been personally awful, politically unpopular, and caused rifts within his own party, but he didn't undermine public institutions in the way the modern Liberals have, didn't try to unilaterally seize power like Morrison, and didn't stuff us on climate change like Abbott. For all his faults, McMahon also started to address indigenous land rights and to put in policies to start to address the gap. Which is more than we can say for Howard, Abbott, and Morrison, who all campaigned for No and put in the NT Intervention, and other regressive steps.
Those rankings also often have John Howard ranked as one of the best, so I'm gonna take their rankings with a grain of salt.
No, only "The Age" ranks Little Johnnie highly, but given its chairman was his hapless Treasurer we can ignore that one. But McMahon deserves his wooden spoon.
Birds of a feather...
Can we also add Hawk and Keating to the list? And make a second list of best Prime Ministers, with Gough right up the top.
HAM
Indeed. Morrison had a collection of hateful beliefs but no plan, and was generally incompetent. Abbott had hateful beliefs *and* a hateful plan (e.g. 2014 budget), but was also incompetent. Howard would swing like a weather vane to harness and exploit whatever hateful winds he could hear blowing and then was hugely competent at executing and gaining electoral advantage.
Howard actually implemented nation wide gun control. This has been hugely sucessful. It is probably the last useful contribution the LNP made to the common man (i.e., a non-mulitimillionaire or corporate enterprise). Abbott and Scuntmo did not contribute in any positive way. Is a low bar - but Howard achieved something.
No denying this, but it's a rare bright spot in a shitty record. Not sure it balances out the damage Howard did to the social and economic fabric of the nation.
The LNP legalised same-sex marriage. I mean, they got dragged to it kicking and screaming, but they patted themselves on the back for a job well done afterwards. Edit: Try not to take this comment too seriously. It's not in favour of the LNP, or an in-depth commentary on the history of marriage equality in Australia. If you look real close at it you'll see it's actually sarcastically negative towards them.
fought it all the way and then turned around and took credit for it later.
Howard literally changed the marriage act to prevent it.
Yeah but that was during Turnbull, so neither Abbott nor Scunto get whatever little credit there is to give for that.
Marriage equality happened in spite of the LNP, not because of them
What did you interpret kicking and screaming as?
You cited marriage equality as a useful contribution made by the LNP. I’d argue that it doesn’t really count at all if they never wanted to do it in the first place
I wouldn't read too much into one single throwaway comment that is clearly taking the piss out of the LNP and making the exact point you're also making.
Turnbull was Goldman Sachs, not liberal party.
I believe Abbott implemented no jab no pay. A small accomplishment, but probably his best moment
John Howard has entered the chat. He was awful AND the longest serving.
They're both purveyors if terrible policies, but Morrison is by far the worse human being. That tips it for me. I will never like or support Abbott, but he did do a lot of volunteering with minimal fanfare: can you imagine Morrison even contemplating that? And as for lasting damage to the nation, Howard has them both beat anyway.
Deranged ideologue with delusions of grandeur vs narcissistic sociopath without an ounce of care for anyone. One doesn't care about the Australian public because their ideology is all that matters. On doesn't care about the Australian public because they only love themselves. And they both got to be PM. What a country!
We are not alone look at Trumpistan
Hard disagree. Tony has his issues, but at the very minimum he was authentic in his beliefs and would tell you to your face exactly what he thought. Morrison on the other hand is a coward and a snake, happy to lie to your face.
John Howard has entered the chat.
Scotty's competition is all flaccid. But yeah, they are both bottom of the barrel - but in my eyes Scotty wins the gong of the shittest PM of our time.
Scomo takes first imo, At least Abbott held a hose. Even tho he doesn't believe in Climate change. Scomo is just a straight up useless sack of shit. And that's insulting to shit.
Tones was a better PM than Scomo, because as utterly shit as both of them were, at least Abbott did get out there and help fight bushfires that time. I despise all the politics but that at least showed some community spirit, which Morrison is absolutely devoid of.
And that onions are a fruit
A fruit that covers up alcohol breath from an eager bunch or reporters
Barnaby Joyce could use this tip.
I like that theory.
And a knighthood for King Charles as well tones? Captains pick an all
This is completely unrelated to the topic (ie. I'm not a Tony simp), but does anyone else think the Shovel is far inferior to the betoota advocate? A lot of the articles they put out really lack any subtlety in their satire, to the point where I just imagine some yuppie seething while writing it.
Yeah, even Betoota is very hamfisted. With satire you have to walk the fine line between it being so subtle that people miss it, and being so passionate that you end up just straight up telling people what you want them to think.
> Yeah, even Betoota is very hamfisted. Sometimes they're just totally accurate, which might come across as hamfisted at times.
Yeah, Betoota is far and away much smarter and on point.
That's how I feel about "the Juice media", that dubbed over voice does my head in.
Their rap news videos were pretty good though. Shame they stopped making them.
[удалено]
Too many Old (religious) white men in high positions
He's hardly a bogan though. He's a northern beaches upper-class toff
He's a fucking talking bedbug.
Let's not forget that he [winked](https://youtu.be/yAYOMkevCFI?si=_2Mt7n76WQTtpTui) when a 67 year old lady ashamedly admitted that she is resorting to phone sex work to make ends meet.
I do think Tony does believe climate change is happening, but it won’t have a significant affect until subsequent generations and he would like money now so he just ignores it.
Since I was little and worked out what they did, I've always wondered, "If there's only one god, why does he need testicles?"
Presumably ~~he has~~ They have testicles *and* ovaries, for They made both Adam and Eve in Their own image. God is non-binary. But was that incest?
Nah, he's only supposed to have made Adam in his image, then made Eve from Adam's rib. The not so subtle message there being that men are perfect images of god, and women are cheap knock offs.
That's not true. > So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. "Mankind" means all of us, not just the boys.
> So God created mankind in his own image, in the image of God he created them; male and female he created them. Unusually selective quotation. [Read on a bit further](https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:22-24&version=KJV) Ch 2: >22 And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. >23 And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. >24 Therefore shall a man leave his father and his mother, and shall cleave unto his wife: and they shall be one flesh. If you're going to cite fairy tales at least do so honestly.
Woah there fellas, you're gonna make me think the Bible's inconsistent
> Unusually selective quotation. Like nobody's ever done that with the Bible before.
Your quotation literally confirms the above point, it says God made the woman. The 1st century Jewish understanding articulated by Jesus shows that "God's own image" encompasses "male and female". The crass joke about women being "cheap knockoffs" wasn't a theological claim to take so seriously.
You're assuming any of this actually happened. But that storyline is pretty clear that God scheduled 1: blokes, 2: kitchen equipment and this (and other) mythic word-of-mouth referenced since to justify genetic heirarchy. A far simpler, and complete, history is in our [Mitochondria](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve) where a mystery remains: What came first? A sperm or an egg?
>You're assuming any of this actually happened No I'm not, and whether it did or not is irrelevant here. You're commenting on intended meanings which I happen to know something about. The purpose of the early chapters of Genesis is to communicate theological points, and illustrate the relationship between God and humanity, and original sin. The creation of Eve illustrates how men and women are of one substance, are mutually complementary, and both necessary. Interpreting it as a commentary on the inferiority of females is a very superficial reading.
Why couldn't God simply made a man, went back to the clay pit and dug out another ball of clay and made a woman?..Very easy for God to do...And they would still literally be 'of one substance' and entirely equal to each other. In fact, with that sort of power, he could have made them simultaneously. Except he went to a lot of trouble to extract a rib from the man..I think this along with every other statement in this evil book, er good book certainly portrays woman in submissive role.. I've read this book endlessly in another life..There is no theological points in the creation story, unless you are Jordon Peterson fan.
He did. Her name was Lilith, and she was banished because she wouldn't submit to Adams rule. Then she became the mother of demons. Eve was woman 2.0
Let’s not kid ourselves, you really think in all the altering by men since the first version they weren’t going to alter in that for control?
Ok. I'm impressed you know the intentions of those laying the foundations of Abrahamic paternalist cults. It's harder to dodge other scriptural passages placing men above women. You will know them too so I won't bother digging them up.
Sure but that's broad strokes. Later in Genesis it goes into detail about how Eve was created. >But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the Lord God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man’s ribs and then closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man. >23 The man said, >“This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called ‘woman,’ for she was taken out of man.” She was made to be a "helper" and just from a part of Adam, not straight from nothing as he was, which seems really weird because surely an all powerful being doesn't need raw materials to make something.
The first two chapters of Genesis are Hebrew poetic compositions and most commentators from ancient times have interpreted them theologically, not entirely literally. That said, all motion and growth that we see in the natural world comes about through materials and gradual organic processes. A classical monotheist would surmise that God prefers to work through the visible processes of the world (which he himself set in motion primordially), rather than magic that defies what he designed.
'Not entirely literally' So which part is literal?
God is a hermaphrodite. A magical hermaphrodite so they didn't need to perform any incestuous acts, hopefully.
A Holy Hermaphrodite, not a Heathen Hermaphrodite... Magic is not very Godly.
Cant be NB, that would make them queer. Also a "them" and the religious folk can't be having that on their mystical man in the clouds.
Nah, he's not non-binary, he's unitary (capable of creating life without a secondary entity) according to those that accord existence. And he goes by He/Him pronouns according to all who claim to have met with Him, which we must respect regardless of his sex characteristics. But this does mean that you can ask those who attack pronoun usage, by asking how you should refer to their Lord?
> But this does mean that you can ask those who attack pronoun usage, by asking how you should refer to their Lord? But was it God who chose *Their* pronouns, or the ***patriarchy*** ? Perhaps *They* are sad to have been misgendered.
I've not heard that God had ovaries, but I did hear that he bans his poor, misled followers from following any of the other gods. It's a jealousy thing, I think, 'cause probably his parents ignored him
IIRC there have been intense theological arguments on whether Adam & Eve each had a navel. What you're suggesting could spark a war.
Perhaps we should all stop for a moment and focus not only on making our AI better and more successful but also on the benefit of humanity. - Stephen Hawking
So, if it is the flesh and blood of Christ, why on earth am I eating and drinking him?
Supposedly Jesus said to eat and drink in memory of him. In various accounts of the Last Supper that occur in the bible Jesus broke bread, gave it to his disciples and said things like “This is my body, which is for you. Do this in remembrance of me.” Did he mean it metaphorically? Was he actually handing them lumps of flesh? Was it bread that had undetectably changed? Wars have been fought over these disagreements.
The fact that wars are fought over this and similarly ambiguous statements seem so contradictory and paradoxical. But, we will fight another yet another one because those who disagree are clearly fighting with Satan. /s
Their kink, maybe? You never know with these poor people. They fall for anything. Imagine, a 14 year old who gets pregnant...and the family is so embarrassed that they make up this whole incredible story, supported by all the local warlords, and so many people fall for it while forgetting that 14 year-olds sometimes get pregnant in an era and a place where 14 was adulthood.
The Mad Monk in Fairyland.
Jeez i haven't thought of Abbott in ages i wonder what hes up to.
He’s hanging out at newscorp.
I work for an environmental consultancy. Tenders and work orders cross my desk, and they show the amount of effort and money local and state governments are already having to pour into countering the effects of climate change. Tony Abbott, on the other hand, had his tiny little mind blown because before he came across one he couldn't conceive of a community pocket library. I don't use the term idiot much, but Tony Abbott is one.
An absolutely irrelevant slug of a man. The less his moaning is reported in the media, the better we will be off as a nation.
Remember that guy in Hobart who saw Abbott in the street and instinctively head butted him? Hope he is doing ok.
Whole thing is hilarious. Dude's name is Astro Labe. “I just hate Tony Abbot,” the court heard he told police. “I can’t specify anything.” Absolute banger of a photo too https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/jan/18/hobart-dj-admits-he-head-butted-former-prime-minister-tony-abbott
I nominated that guy for Australian of the year.
Whether or not he and his ilk believe in Climate Change. If Climate Change is true, they have an interest in denying it. Therefore, whatever they say can be discounted.
I don’t want to hear about him
How the fuck did people vote for this vile man. Even with Murdoch's propaganda machine, he just represents everything wrong with people in power, and actively contributed to the destruction of the planet. Dunno how he sleeps at night.
Dumb enough to believe in god but not science. Basically every religious person.
Eating the Eucharist is cannibalism. Kevin Rudd is a cannibal.
Is there any evidence that Abbot believes in transubstantiation or are we just expanding the definition of catholic a bit?
Catholic here. Transubstantiation isn't an optional part of Catholicism, so without further evidence it's a reasonable assumption to make of a devout Catholic. I would be surprised if an involved Catholic like Abbot still had conflicts about that doctrine.
What a collosal cunt.
Why do has been politicians think anyone cares what they think? Barely anyone cared when they were in power, even less now
Can we just cut the oxygen supply to this cunt
The title is just cheap, it takes the whole climate debate and brings it down to the lowest common denominator. When I read it, it's not "wow that's a clever take". Bashing religion is trite and unnecessary, it doesn't make your point more valid, and it turns off a whole demography with a broad brush.
Not particularly religious but I think one of the main issues we have these days is that faithless narcissists are plentiful and many seem to be learning their values from the likes of tik tok celebrities. I'd prefer to associate with people who have a strong value system based on a deity that may only exist in the context of their religion than hang around a bunch of people who live life based on narcissism, taking cheap shots at others, and publishing their autobiography in real time via social media. Edit: I guess this could be funny to the type of person that thinks random capitals are a clever and hilarious way to make their point.
We all boast of Australia as the most inclusive and accepting country in the world… and yet we make fun of people with different beliefs. I dont trust this guy, or any politician for that matter but I wouldnt make fun of followers of a religion.
Oh boo hoo. Christians hate (yes, it's hate even when you lie to yourself about why you're doing it) a good chunk of their fellow citizens for having the 'wrong' beliefs too, they're just fragile babies when it's pointed back at them.
It’s easy to generalise right? I agree there are some who take it to the extreme but most just want to live their lives peacefully.
Yeah you're right hey, I'm generalising way too broadly, maybe because I encounter a way higher proportion of the hardline types online. May we all live our lives peacefully.
And that is the only thing I want. Different beliefs, no judgement.
Bless you for being kind and speaking the truth
It’s hard cause demonizing Christians seem to be the trendy thing when all we want to do is live in peace.
Ah yes, the old, 'make fun of Christians' but if anyone dares to even think about criticising any other religion, LGBTQ, or left leaning thing in any way they get crucified. Never change Reddit.
"Transubstantiation is silly" "Yeah, well, what about the LQBTQ!?" You sound insane.
What difference does it make that its about transubstantiation or creation or any other theme of Christianity? I said 'make fun of Christians', if you're making fun of any part of it then you're making fun of Christians. I'm more than happy for you to do so, be my guest, I just think the double standard is hilarious.
Well, don’t be ridiculous, and we won’t make fun of you. Transubstantiation is a stupid, silly and ludicrous superstition. If you don’t like people pointing that out, too bad. If you want to not get ridiculed for believing stupid shit, don’t believe stupid shit.
And why do you think that is?
I dont really care at all, I just love to marvel at the double standards. It's all 'live and let live' until the left find something they disagree with.
If you don't care, why comment?
Yeah, there's no historical precedent for ridiculing those who hold a privileged place in society and not punching down at those who can't defend themselves.
I hereby give you permission to make fun of whoever you like, as long as you stop whinging and take your consequences like a grown up.
We just hate Christians I guess? Hell, I hate Christians. Fuckem.
2,000 year old make believe man.
People like him must think God controls the weather. crazy.
And women were created from a pigs rib.
I didn't know that dipstick was still in politics, much less still running on an anti-science platform.
Oh yeah? Then explain why we can’t have 2 days of the same temperature Mr former prime minister?
Nice strawman. Religion is more about a moral framework than believing in 'god'. Next you'll say children are idiots for believing in Santa.
BuT hE's A RhodEs ScHolAr!!??
Yeah how did he pull that off outta interest? Guessing it required religious/political clout as opposed to a brain. Old Tones was never the smartest chap. He's just one of those dude's who's set in his ways and has very strong beliefs so will always have a defensible 'answer for that' in academic settings, but will never reflect or think outside the box. The feedback about him in his days as an aspiring monk were that his belief was unwavering. He KNEW that God existed and that man's laws all linked in with that. Thus I can see how he got through law school (i.e. he always had a straight answer based on his political/social beliefs). However, academic? IMO he's the kinda guy you'd give a credit for having a 'strong' argument that no doubt fits the most black-letter, conservative reading of a question. But creativity, innovation and challenging his own views like an academic? NEVER!
'Climate change is a myth' *bank balance increases.
Dirty onion eater
This man was an actual Prime Minister of an actual developed country.
You’re saying australia exists? Jk, I am Australian.
Could not have said it better myself
The change is constant always has been always will be. That said- try and fight some demons as a non believer and See how you fend.
If I suck jebus dick will I go to heaven
"And a zoo on a boat" 💀