Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Regions of the World
Australian & New Zealand
Gillard's political games - fruit of unbelief?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="joey_downunder" data-source="post: 59790102" data-attributes="member: 242214"><p>Basic group dynamics - leader sets course of action and followers take that course. Not always set in concrete like Tony Abbott's personal beliefs versus official Liberal Party abortion policies. </p><p>e.g. Murdoch and the many proven *cough* "alleged" cases of UK journalists' phone hacking to get their scandalous breaking news stories. Would they really have done that if the boss hadn't rewarded breaking news at any cost?</p><p>In general workplaces boss sets tone, values, atmosphere. In families and social groups the same happens. </p><p></p><p>Good point. Would it have been approved if Abbott had been prime minister at the time? Of course we'll never know and I doubt if he does ever get into power that it will get overturned either. </p><p> </p><p>Lately (especially since Rudd came into power) leader announces the good news/policies and poor spokesperson announces the bad. </p><p></p><p>Journalists and politicians depend on each other for their existance but dislike each other. It is hard to tell which one is the parasite and which one is the host at times. </p><p></p><p>We'll never know if that would have happened. If Coalition hadn't put greens before Labor in preferences perhaps they would be in power now? Oh for time machines like in those movies.... <img src="/styles/default/xenforo/smilies/old/kawaii.gif" class="smilie" loading="lazy" alt="^_^" title="Kawaii ^_^" data-shortname="^_^" /></p><p> </p><p>So do you believe that Gillard's atheism has nothing to do with 1. the Labor Party's inability to make any decisions and stick to them no matter how unpopular 2. willingness to lie/mislead/distract at every opportunity 3. choose policies on what will get the most votes in short-term instead of long-term decisions?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="joey_downunder, post: 59790102, member: 242214"] Basic group dynamics - leader sets course of action and followers take that course. Not always set in concrete like Tony Abbott's personal beliefs versus official Liberal Party abortion policies. e.g. Murdoch and the many proven *cough* "alleged" cases of UK journalists' phone hacking to get their scandalous breaking news stories. Would they really have done that if the boss hadn't rewarded breaking news at any cost? In general workplaces boss sets tone, values, atmosphere. In families and social groups the same happens. Good point. Would it have been approved if Abbott had been prime minister at the time? Of course we'll never know and I doubt if he does ever get into power that it will get overturned either. Lately (especially since Rudd came into power) leader announces the good news/policies and poor spokesperson announces the bad. Journalists and politicians depend on each other for their existance but dislike each other. It is hard to tell which one is the parasite and which one is the host at times. We'll never know if that would have happened. If Coalition hadn't put greens before Labor in preferences perhaps they would be in power now? Oh for time machines like in those movies.... ^_^ So do you believe that Gillard's atheism has nothing to do with 1. the Labor Party's inability to make any decisions and stick to them no matter how unpopular 2. willingness to lie/mislead/distract at every opportunity 3. choose policies on what will get the most votes in short-term instead of long-term decisions? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Leisure and Society
Society
Regions of the World
Australian & New Zealand
Gillard's political games - fruit of unbelief?
Top
Bottom