Existential
Member
- Joined
- May 26, 2010
- Messages
- 620
- Gender
- Undisclosed
- HSC
- N/A
Not having children is totally irrelevant ie. noone cares. People make more of a deal over her red hair than the fact she a a woman. Seriously - NOONE CARES.First female prime minister doesn't mean anything because she doesn't have children.
If Ms. Gillard had children and was prime minister, i'd celebrate this auspicious occasion.
If she had children there's no way she'd be where she is.
I'm just saying.
Think about it.
Children have nothing to do with this... your comment is a fail.
mmmm.... im sure you, like many - were concerned about the failing (poll/public opinion-wise) of ALP and Rudd before gillard took over. i didn't want gillard to replace rudd - but in doing so she probaly has guaranteed victory in a 2010 august election (all going well). im not saying rudd couldn't have pulled it off, but it looked as though his plummet wasn't going to end.So Rudd was rolled at the first opportunity because he was a gutless, flip flopping, conservative autocrat who was losing in the polls, naturally he was replaced by someone who has fobbed off the gay rights lobby, backed down on the mining tax, stayed in synch with Rudd's ETS policy, who plays dog whistle politics with immigration and who will retain the power to choose the front bench. All the while her honeymoon period against Tony Abbott of all people is absolutely dwarfed by Rudd's honeymoon period against the most successful prime minister since Menzies which lasted nearly three years. Going great guns there ALP.
put is this way - im sure you can agree on this:
An ALP Gillard Govt is better than a Coalition Abbott Govt.