General statistics
List of Youtube channels
Youtube commenter search
Distinguished comments
About

Sky News Australia
comments

Comments by "" (@pwillis1589) on "Labor comes off bipartisanship line on national security" video.

This comment needs to be put in context. The reduction in defence spending was taken in response to hard budget decisions that had to be taken in regard to the global financial crisis at the time.
2
@Luum81 I agree with you, we need to spend more on defence as long as every Australian understands it is going to be expensive.
2
@Luum81 The wage bill alone for an extra 80000 regular troops would be $5 billion a year let alone the equipment bill which would be somewhere in region $100 billion to provide the armour, artillery, aircraft, and transport. Who do think is going to pay for that? Your great great great great grandchildren.
1
@pwillis1589. inane repetitive nonsense after more inane repetitive nonsense repeating back my comments about you. Next it will be I know you are but what am I.
1
In is a ridiculously stupid extreme comment to suggest Labour don’t take the defence of this country as its most serious concern.
1
@pwillis1589. That is just the most obviously ignorant comment on WWII history and Australia's contribution. Robert Menzies was PM April 1939 to August 1941. A conservative government had led Australia right through the early 30s that essentially left Australia defenceless. It was Curtin in late December of 41 that called on the US to help defend us. Your knowledge of Australian history is abysmal.
1
@pwillis1589. I mean really. The Menzies government raised an Army and sent it to Nth Africa to defend Britains interests instead of preparing to defend Australia from the Japanese. Have you ever read a history book?
1
@pwillis1589. You only have the read the cabinet briefing documents prepared by General Sturdee in 1940 who recommended our Middle East forces be brought back to defend a defenceless Australia. The Menzies government ignored his advice. As soon as Curtin became PM he pressured Churchill to release our troops which he eventually did. You seem to be in alternate universe and have virtually no understanding of the time frames involved.
1
@hesky68 My personal experience as a soldier in the ADF is irrelevant to any debate about national defence. I will agree at various times in recent years the LNP has put more resources into defence but not always wisely. I have also seen some shocking instances of politicisation of the ADF by Liberals and some dreadful decisions by Labour defence ministers.
1
@pwillis1589. Have you any at all understanding of WWII history. Do you honestly believe the Australian government prior to December of 41 did zero planning or had any intelligence that the Japanese were not planning to expand. This is all common public knowledge and the breadth of your knowledge of Australian military history is limited in the extreme.
1
@hesky68 Look at just two Howard era LNP defence purchases the ARH Tiger and the MRH Taipain helicopters both complete disasters. I’m not saying Labour haven’t fucked up defence equipment as well, it is just not as clear cut as you think.
1
@pwillis1589. I’m not implying anything I’m telling you we had already committed significant air and naval assets to the war in Europe and basic commonsense tells you to maintain a reserve. One infantry division minus to the Middle East would have been more than sufficient.
1
@pwillis1589. It was Curtin who accepted MacArthurs plan to go on to the offensive and reject the Australian military advice of defensive measures that won the day.
1
@pwillis1589. I said exactly that Curtin was PM when Japan attacked. I never implied or said otherwise you only have to read back through the comments to prove this, which only shows your total and complete ignorance of Australian WWII military history.
1
@pwillis1589. WTF who said anything about the Brisbane line. A strawman comment that renders your comment nonsensical. GOC Sturdee presented a withdrawal plan to Curtin in the advent of a jap invasion but Curtin rejected it. Ward was a dick and didn’t understand Sturdees plan.
1
@pwillis1589. Just one long nonsensical Gish gallop illogical rant. As I stated clearly Strudee and then Mackay presented defensive plans to first a Menzies government and then a Curtin government. Menzies meekly acknowledged the plan and Curtin said no and immediately sought the assistance of the US. This is just common public knowledge and is well documented. Your childlike fascination with the Brisbane line which again I did not mention as it was not a real thing shows a continued lack of awareness about WWII history. Australia was initially committed politically and strategically to the forward defence concept of Singapore, hence why elements of the 8th division were deployed. Once again it was a Curtin government that prevented further losses by stopping a Churchill decision to send returning Middle East forces to Singapore. It was a failure of the Menzies conservative government to properly prepare and defend Australia from a potential Japanese attack that forced Curtin to ask the US for support. Do you think you can manage an adult response?
1
@hesky68 Just a ridiculous reply with a stupid exaggeration “complete destruction of the defence force”. Are you interested in an adult discussion or just idiotic hyperbole?
1
@pwillis1589. WTF there was no conscription in Australia in WWI. Curtin was absolutely against conscription and fought ferociously against it, and was gaoled briefly for not attending a medical examination which he did on principle, as he would of failed it (he was a blind as a bat). Curtin was not a pacifist.
1
@pwillis1589. On top of that the 22 Bde was deployed to Mayala in Feb 41 the 27th in Aug 41. Curtin didn't become PM till Oct of 41. You are just totally factually wrong. Please just read a history book before you comment any further and prove beyond doubt your ignorance of the subject.
1
@pwillis1589. More nonsensical rubbish. As clearly stated earlier Australia was committed politically and strategically to the defence of Singapore and the troops were under British control. General Percivel surrendered Singapore, Curtin had nothing to do with it, but the facts seem to be beyond your comprehension.
1
@pwillis1589. Just repeating nonsense might make it sound true in your head but does little to form a coherent argument. See if you can put some historical facts together. I completely refuted your comments about Curtin, do you have any sensible arguments to put forward.
1
@hesky68 Emojis really. That's the level of intellect you bring to a discussion on current and historical strategies for defending Australia.
1
@hesky68 So you have nothing. You provide no evidence, just uninformed opinion. No problems, emojis always trump a reasonable argument.
1
@pwillis1589. By the way just refresh me what battalion/regiment did Menzies serve with in the 1AIF?
1
@hesky68 Once again a nonsensical emotional rant lacking any data or reasoned debate. You didn't even chuck in an emjoi to support your point. That in itself was disappointing.
1
@pwillis1589. Again just an emotional rant with no content other than to point out the factual errors in your previous comments. I understand it is like smashing an egg against a brick wall. The Menzies government was politically obliged to send troops to Singapore as part of an agreement with Britain. Menzies was not PM when that defence agreement was signed. Nice cowardly avoidance of Menzies military service. He had good personal reasons why he didn't serve in WWI but you were to ignorant or frightened to defend him. Pathetic.
1
@hesky68 Seriously you are so offended by me pointing out the stupidity of your argument, you can't even tell the difference between it and your mindless personal abuse. I have remained respectful of you personally, I have only attacked your argument. I just ignore the childish abuse.
1
@pwillis1589. Curtin never served in the Military as provided earlier he was as blind as a bat, with his eyesight he would never have got through a medical. Just look at photos of him and take note of his glasses. Once again this is common public knowledge that isn't even remotely controversial.
1
@pwillis1589. I never said otherwise he was a officer in the Milita. Obviously it was too hard for you to comprehend, I was pointing out he didn't serve in WWI and experienced operationally exactly the same amount of war as Curtin did, nil. Do you know any history at all or just making it up on the fly?
1
@pwillis1589. You haven't mocked anything. You have provided zero evidence for any of your arguments and have usually resorted to personal abuse when flaws in your points have been highlighted by me.
1
@pwillis1589. WTF, you make absolutely no sense. Repeating agreed to facts just makes you look silly. Apart from continuing vacuous comments about John Curtin, and Menzies not enlisting in the AIF, do you actually have anything of substance to add to your argument on the defence of Australia in WWII?
1
@pwillis1589. Sorry I didn't realise you don't know the difference between the Milita and the AIF. Are you even an Australian?
1
In 1938 it was a conservative UAP that had our defence at its lowest ebb ever. The Menzies government had virtually decided to surrender if the Japanese invaded.
1
@pwillis1589. You addressed nothing of the recent funding issues, as I proved without going back eighty years at all that the Hawke Labour government spent more on defence than the Howard LNP government. You show a distinct lack of understanding of Australian military history. You are obviously not Australian, and have difficulty with English, what nationality are you?
1
@pwillis1589. Nahh as I thought you're not even an Australian.
1
@pwillis1589. Nah, nothing you have said let's me believe you're an Aussie. On a side note what an idiotic reply to my data on defence spending. First I proved beyond a shadow of doubt that prior to WWII conservative governments had neglected defence, but that of recent times they had as well. Your hopeless response was to complain I went back to WWII data and then you argue data from 50 years ago. No real Aussie could argue that stupidly.
1
@pwillis1589. This is just so easy. In 1937 just two years out from WWII so important was the defence of the country taken by the conservative Lyons government, defence spending had fallen to just £9357 or 1.06% of GDP. Not even the Gillard government 2011 budget at 1.60% could get that low. Your argument is nonsensical when the undisputed data is presented.
1
@pwillis1589. Just setting you up to show what a stupid argument you have. Average % of GDP spending on defence under 13 years of Hawke/Keating 1.97%. Under 8 years of Abbott/Turnbull/Morrison 1.93%. The difference between 10 years of Howard and 6 years of Gillard/Rudd was only .1%. Your moronic argument fails on every count. The data is undisputed. Whatever country you live in you need to do better research.
1
@pwillis1589. So you have nothing, absolutely nothing, no evidence, no supporting data, no argument, no coherent narrative, no sense of anything. Just a childlike rambling of vacuousness.
1
@pwillis1589. On a side note again Bob Hawke was a serial womaniser, drunkenly bum, who was a pathetic excuse of a father, all of which has two fiths of fuck all to do with defence spending, other to show you have no understanding of what a non sequester is in argumentation.
1
@pwillis1589. Just meaningless drivel with no facts attached, only repeated vacuous unsupported claims about some graph you made up in your imagination. With no understanding of the word "average" it doesn't surprise me you have so much trouble forming a coherent argument. You provide no concrete data merely an argument based on gut feeling. It is called an argument from personal experience or anecdotal fallacy and renders your reply nonsensical rubbish. Try again with something substantial.
1
@pwillis1589. Yearly spend figures really! and you can’t even see the irony in calling me a “tard” A single yearly figure doesn’t take into account, income, inflation, variable equipment purchases, forward spending initiatives, and the list goes on. None of this will make any sense to you of course, but anyone else reading this will get a laugh. Also on point is both the current PM and defence minister speak in % of GDP when describing defence budgets. Once again do some proper research get some data together and form a coherent argument and then reply sensibly.
1
A welcome announcement from the LNP today about a significant increase in personal, no mention however of what equipment these soldiers will using. Where is the 30% increase in tanks and artillery. Also this increase was identified by the ADF in its 2020 Force structure review. So why has it taken 2 years for the government to act?
1
For anyone truly interested in this topic there is an excellent opinion piece in today's " The Australian" by a well respected foreign affairs and defence editor Greg Sheridan. For our overseas readers it's behind a paywall so bad luck, but it is an excellent critique of both LNP and Labour defence policy leading into the upcoming federal election.
1
@pwillis1589. Mindless dribble with no thought or substance.
1
@pwillis1589. The childlike naivety with which you blindly accept Scotty from Marketings political spin is in its way kind of endearing, almost cute I would say.
1
@pwillis1589. Factually incorrect twaddle. The Howard government reduced spending on defence from the previous Hawke/Keating government. The Rudd/Gillard government maintained that spending and currently the Abbott/ Turnbull/Morrison government while increasing spending still average less than the Hawke/Keating government. The data doesn't lie, but you are incapable of reading or understanding a graph.
1
Don't be fooled while an increase to defence numbers is a good thing, this a just a announcement of planned and necessary increases due to an expanding submarine and frigate, and OPV fleet.
1
@pwillis1589. Factually wrong and easily disproved. You claim something from your imagination, declare it fact with no evidence whatsoever. I’m interested how do you differentiate your reality from your imagination.
1
@pwillis1589. No, I have provided publicly available data that is undisputed. You have provided nothing but mindless opinion.
1
@pwillis1589. If only you were capable of understanding the data that I presented 5 days ago as it clearly stated that spending under Rudd/Gillard averaged 0.1% of GDP less than the previous Howard government. Nothing was manipulated you just don't understand the data and go off on an illogical rant and make completely exaggerated claims based on your unsupported political ideology. You haven't got a clue about defence spending or how to interpret GDP data.
1
@pwillis1589. And under a Howard LNP conservative government defence spending was reduced on average by 0.19%. So by your own logic your argument lacks any substance. Just more vacuous garbage from you.
1
@pwillis1589. Meaningless drivel yet again. You fixate on a subject and then repeat and repeat, a characteristic I find enchanting. It is charming how derogatory you are of Labour and yet so captivated by a single Labour pollies words. Labour will be elected at our next Federal election and whatever country you live in there is shit you can do about it.
1
@pwillis1589. You don't have a full understanding of the Australian parliamentary system. The LNP are in government and hence the Labour opposition are referred to as defence spokesperson not minister, just one more of your endearing flaws in your argumentation (don't bother about the facts). So once again you spew forth with flawed thought. Have you an original thought in head or do you just repeat Skynews talking points?
1
@pwillis1589. I'm merely repeating your words "Labour Defence Minister" , when I corrected you, you then inserted the word "shadow" in your next reply, so it is good to see you are learning about the Australian parliamentary system. It is nice to see you doing some actual research, keep it up. Have you been able to work out what "average" or "mean" means when discussing % of GDP spent of Defence over a period of years?
1
@pwillis1589. Fantastic not only are you now properly researching your topic your spelling is improving. Good to see you learning from me. On the other hand there is nothing I can learn from your mindlessly boring repetitive spiel. You have still failed on every count to provide even a modicum of evidence to support your asinine argument.
1
@pwillis1589. So now it's just back to the same vacuous boring repetitive factless monologue, without a shred of evidence to support any of your claims. Unfortunately you haven't displayed any facts at all, just unsupported rhetoric.
1
@pwillis1589. In the entire history of defence spending in Australia 1901 to 2022 the two peaks as a % of GDP were under Labor governments in 1915 and during WWII. Our lowest defence spending was in 1937 under a conservative government. Under a Menzies Liberal government the defence budget was continually decreased from the early 50s to the early 70s. It is just factually incorrect to state that conservative governments always increase defence budgets, this is a blatantly false claim.
1
@pwillis1589. And yet you provide no evidence of your claim only the same repetitive drivel. In 1938-39 under a conservative government defence spending was 1.5% of GDP. Under Gillard in 2012-13 it was 1.60. However under the Howard government in 2002-03 was only 1.62 just .02 higher. The Labor 2009-10 budget was 1.93, it was higher than any Howard era defence budget. The Keating government in 1994-95 spent 1.96 on defence. Your claims are both historically wrong and wrong in recent times and easily refuted. They bare no resemblance to reality. My sources are. Defence expenditure over the century, ABS and ABS, Australian National accounts: National income, expenditure and product.
1
@pwillis1589. At least we can both agree our spelling skills are "appalling".
1
@pwillis1589. I don't give a rat's arse what someone said in a TV interview, I'm telling you your claims of Labor always cutting the defence budget are clearly false. The LNP have at various times cut the defence budget and spent less on defence than Labor, it is just a undisputed fact. In was generous of you to highlight my spelling failures unfortunately those in glass houses shouldn't throw bricks " It's appalling".
1
@pwillis1589. LNP defence budget 2004/05 1.72% of GDP. Labor defence budget 2009/10 1.94% of GDP. That is a increase in defence expenditure by Labor of .22%. Straight from the ABS.
1
@pwillis1589. Well that was another long nonsensical rant completely ignoring the facts. I find it quite "appalling" (spelt correctly for your learning experience)
1
@pwillis1589. So which is it? Am I manipulating data or copy and paste. Get your story/argument straight in your head before spewing forth with meaningless piffle.
1
@pwillis1589. You do seem to enjoy trying to personalise a argument you keep failing at. As you were unable to understand mean or average spending I decided to help you out with picking some individual years, % GDP was the agreed upon measure and when that proved your argument false you chose new goal posts. I will play that game as you lose that too. Total defence spend in the last year of Fraser's LNP government $4.501 billion. The first Hawke defence budget $5.056 billion. The total defence spend in the last year of the Howard government $19.3 billion. In the first year of the Rudd/Gillard government $20.25 billion. Considering your expletive laden comment 10 days ago I was somewhat amused by your concern with my "rats arse" coin of phrase. I will remain respectful of your frailties in the future. LNP is an abbreviation I use for Liberal/National Party federal coalition, but I understand why you were confused with the LNP Queensland state party.
1
@pwillis1589. Your argument about % of GDP to total spend is laughable. Of course it all depends on a countries income and tax policies and the overall prevailing economy at the time both internally and externally which goes directly to my original point 10 days ago that set you off in your triggered expletive laden rant. When Labor took over from Howard in its first budget it spent $20.25 billion it then continued to increase every year to the last year at $24.73 billion. The Howard government cruised through a economic golden time and instead of spending up big on defence when we had the money he gave us tax cuts instead. Gillard and Rudd had to deal with a global financial crisis that was not of their making and managed to get Australia though a period without us going into recession which just about the rest of the world did. To the current governments credit it has had to deal with a covid pandemic and has used Labor Keynesian economic policy to maintain spending, but it has had to borrow a heap of money to do that.
1
@pwillis1589. On a side note again not relating to defence spending but here are the GDP growths per year for the six years of the Gillard/Rudd government's. 2007 +3.84% 2008 +3.66% 2009 +1.94% 2010 +2.07% 2011 +2.46% 2012 +3.92%. Your argument about Labor running down the economy during Rudd is just plain ridiculous. You have even made my argument for me as despite the % of GDP defence spending going down, because the economy grew total defence spent in dollars increased as our GDP increased. What part of this don't you understand?
1
@pwillis1589. Just more meaningless drivel. No facts, no substantive opinion, no evidence of anything. You have not been able to substantiate a single one of your claims. All you do is attempt to personalise a debate you lost on the facts.
1
@pwillis1589. Mindless piffle. Just attempted personal insult after another. Childlike in its structure and content. Is that all you have?
1
@pwillis1589. LMFAO. The references you refer to all support my argument. Did you even read them?
1
@pwillis1589. Your comments are mindless piffle lacking intellectual rigour starting from 11 days ago with your expletive laden rant, and have only regressed to vague Lindsay Lohan movie references. Is that all you have?
1
@pwillis1589. More idiotic ramblings saying nothing, just the usual attempt to personalise an argument and now obfuscating with the unfortunate death of a politician. You must have something better than that pathetic excuse of an argument. By your logic the Labor 2012-13 defence budget was 1.60% of GDP because Senator Kitching died of a suspected attack after being allegedly bullied doing her job. That's what you're going with? You have been totally incapable of defending your first rant and showed little understanding of the politics involved in defending Australia in WWII and now you wish to change the subject to the treatment of women in the parliament and by some extraordinary leap of faith you think you can do that. Do you really want to compare the track record of the Liberal/National coalition against the Labor party in the treatment of women in Parliament?
1
@pwillis1589. Who is "Hitching"? You care so little about someone's death in an attempt to obfuscate you can't even spell her name correctly, that was really clever. One strawman argument after another, have you got anything, I mean anything of substance to argue in relation to defence spending another than your baseless line that the Liberals/Nationals always spend more on defence which I have trashed entirely.
1
@pwillis1589. More and more meaningless emotional piffle. Have you an argument for for the variations in defence spending throughout Australia's history or not?
1
@pwillis1589. You are the one who entered spelling mistakes into the discussion. I am perfectly happy to let spelling and grammer mistakes slide. As I said before people who live in glass house shouldn't throw bricks. It is "appalling".
1
@pwillis1589. Incomprehensible gibberish. Other than a preoccupation with me personally, just no coherent argument about variations in Australian defence spending over our history.
1
@pwillis1589. What gave you the impression I am attempting to annoy you? Strange that you should even raise that as an issue!
1
@pwillis1589. Try to formulate a coherent argument instead a tirade of abuse.
1
@pwillis1589. More nonsensical gibberish. Have you an argument at all, or just moronic personal abuse?
1
@pwillis1589. Gibberish supported by drivel. Have you an argument about Australian defence spending or are you just going to repeat inane statements of nothingless.
1
@pwillis1589. Further imbecilic rantings. You presented no facts, no data, just idiotic personal abuse. Do you have an argument?
1
@pwillis1589. Just an endless loop of the same tired old hate filled rantings of someone devoid of an argument. Is this all you have?
1
@pwillis1589. You are on an endless moronic loop devoid of any substance and all you can manage is continuing attempts to personalise a debate about defence resourcing of which you provided no data. Is there more to your argument or are you just stuck on vilification.
1
@pwillis1589. I asked if you wished to discuss attitudes and behaviours regarding women in parliament and you ignored it, and just continued with your abuse. In the last week you have even started copying my vocabulary, I assume you think this clever or funny, you continue to attempt to change the subject as you either are unable to support your argument or realise you're mistaken. Do you have an argument or are you just going to copy what I say?
1
@pwillis1589. Do you wish to discuss just the issues and concerns around the death of Senator Kitching? and or include all aspects of parliamentary behaviour towards women on all sides of politics?
1
@pwillis1589. Lastly it was you who introduced and trivialised the term "mean girls" into a discussion about defence spending in some idiotic attempt at????? I don't know.
1
@pwillis1589. You initiated the term "mean girls" not me, in a childish attempt at again I don't know what or why. I think it was was because you thought it was clever, but again I make no judgements on you as a person only your unbelievabley stupid rhetoric.
1
@pwillis1589. Use of the word "stooge" 73 times, "stolen valour" 61 times, "dregs" 65 times. Your vocabulary at least has improved marginally as you copied my words of late, which is endearing. Once again is that all you have?
1
@pwillis1589. "triggered" 46 times. Comedy gold" lost count, but almost included in every inane reply.
1
@pwillis1589. Inanity after Inanity, topped up with a dose of delusional argument.
1
@pwillis1589. Inanity after Inanity, with a dose of moronic attempts at argumentation. Once again what else have you got?
1
@pwillis1589. Inane reply one after the other, have you an argument or not. Stupid personal abuse is not an argument.
1
@pwillis1589. Inanity followed by more inanity, are you able to formulate a logical argument?
1
Brisbane is out, as the approaches in Moreton bay are too shallow and easy to mine, and additional munitions infrastructure would need to be built. Newcastle is too busy with commercial shipping. So Port Kembla will get the pick, but of course the best option is Sydney harbour but for some political reason I’m not aware of it has been taken off the list.
1
@pwillis1589. When you talk of "adult conversion" do you mean this in the medical sense or in the religious sense?
1
@pwillis1589. Ahh conversation, LMFAO. And here was I thinking you had discovered God.
1
@pwillis1589. Sorry I was mocking you, that was unkind of me and you are right I am most definitely condescending. God would have to actually exist in reality for me to hate such an entity. Ambivalence to any suggestion of deism would be a more accurate description of my position.
1
@pwillis1589. Do some research on the Dunning-Kruger effect and you will find no one is immune to the effect least of all those who use it in an argument. P Willis AASM, ASM, OSM, NEM, DLSM, ADM, UNTAET, Labor Stooge, dregs of society, atheist.
1
@pwillis1589. Dunning-Kruger is a commonly known psychological effect ever since the mid 90s after the scientific paper was published. I fully understand its effect and am in no doubt a victim of it. P Willis AASM ASM OSM NEM ADM UNTAET Labor Stooge, dreg of society, part of the cabal, atheist.
1
@pwillis1589. You misunderstand Dunning-Kruger, it is not about pretending to be an expert or attempting to be deceitful. It is more to do with not understanding the limits of your knowledge. It is just as applicable to an actual expert as to someone who is ignorant of the real facts. Why did you raise it in discussion without fully understanding its effects? P Willis AASM ASM OSM NEM DLSM ADM UNTAET Labor Stooge, dreg of society, part of the cabal, atheist, soy latte drinker.
1
@pwillis1589. That's funny, someone referencing Dunning-Kruger in a discussion on, well who knows what now, and then saying they know exactly what it is about, when in actual fact it is a complicated psychological issue. I don't really know how to respond to that only do you know just hilariously funny and absurd that comment would be found by David and Justin. P Willis AASM ASM OSM NEM DLSM ADM UNTAET Labor Stooge, dreg of society, part of the cabal, atheist, soy latte drinker, pea in a pod with Penny
1
@pwillis1589. Yes that is the whole point of Dunning-Kruger effect, the study showed nobody is immune to it, which i acknowledged in my first reply after you mentioned it. Obviously you are the sole exception and are totally immune to its effect. P Willis AASM ASM OSM NEM DLSM ADM UNTAET Labor Stooge, dreg of society, part of the cabal, atheist, soy latte drinker, pea in a pod with Penny, self-righteous and condescending
1
@pwillis1589. Well someone has to exhibit some expertise cause I ain't getting any from your side. On a serious note however, to summarise you introduced the term "mean girls" into a discussion about defence spending, a phrase you had heard or read in the media. You used it to deliberately obfuscate the discussion. I dismissed it as irrelevant and mocked you for doing so, hence my reference to the movie that the term obviously originated from. You have since become obsessed by it and continuely try to personalise the discussion. Then you introduced another concept again without an understanding of what you were saying. At one point in discussing Dunning-Kruger you even assumed I had researched the topic which if was true is exactly what someone would not do if they thought they were an expert. They would only research if they thought they didn't know what it was. So you actually unknowingly complimented me. Trying to keep you on subject is like herding cats. P Willis AASM ASM OSM NEM DLSM ADM UNTAET Labor Stooge, dreg of society, part of the cabal, atheist, soy latte drinker, pea in a pod with Penny, self-righteous, condescending, and cantankerous.
1
@pwillis1589. On another side note. It is good to see you read the "The Australian" and excellent publication both for news and comment.
1
Fortunately for all concerned T M finally realised their false, incorrect and abusive comments and deleted their entire exchange with me. A cowardly act but in keeping with the abuse they offered instead of a reasoned argument. Good riddance
1
What a cowardly act. I never harrased TM and at any stage if they had just said I no longer wish to discuss this matter I would have stopped this exchange instead they continued to reply to my comments. TM runs and hides, and is too frightened to offer a reasoned argument.
1
If TM truly believed they were being harrarassed why didn't they report me as such on youtube.
1
@pwillis1589. So you change your ID, and complain about harassment but never mentioned anything when we were discussing defence spending or Australian military history. You still feel compelled to reply to my comments. Was it me correcting your spelling that filled you with such rage?
1
@pwillis1589. Why did you change your ID to the same as mine and then continue to exchange comments?
1
@pwillis1589. Who have I stalked on other media platforms? You continue with your personal abuse, but I am perplexed as to why you think I am stalking. I do discuss other issues on youtube channels with other commentators, is this what you mean? Also who and when, did I infer I had found someone? Is it possible you may have confused me with somebody else as the only media platform I use is youtube.
1
@pwillis1589. When you said in your comment stalking and harassing innocent people I thought you meant you, that is why I responded the way I did. Can you give me a clue as to who I stalked and harrased because if you honestly feel that way I will immediately stop.
1
@pwillis1589. Your reply didn't address any of my questions, who have I allegedly stalked and on what media platform? Why is it important for you to feel that I am "triggered"? Why have you started deleting some of your previous comments?
1
@pwillis1589. I thought so. You have deleted your first comment where you alleged you had been on a parade at which the Defence minister at the time Kim Beazley attended. You called him a fat fuck. You have deleted that comment either because it was a false claim or you were ashamed of it. If you were really in the Army then it would put you now in your mid to late 50s, but you're not are you, you are probably a 20 something abusive incel, that was shamed in a argument about defence spending and military history and now just replies with the same abusive diatribe everytime. And you claim I'm the stalker. How is your OCD?
1
@pwillis1589. Ahh you edited out the first part of that reply, where you mirrored my initial comment, that's why I missed it. You had deleted it then gone back in and edited one of your other replies but have forgotten the exact wording so you have had your best go at it but didn't get it quite right. Nice try though. Your crys of lying fall on deaf ears I'm afraid as you are not trustworthy. Shall we discuss your abusive and bullying language before moving on the discuss the allegations surrounding Senator Kitchings tragic death?
1
@pwillis1589. Why are you deleting your comments?
1
@pwillis1589. Huh? It's weird, like not all your replies or comments have been deleted, but alot have, either you're doing it or for some reason the channel moderator is. Weird.
1
@pwillis1589. Well you might still be able to see your comments but I can't.
1
@pwillis1589. And your comment about being on a parade that Kim Beazley was at and how Labor are all soy latte drinkers has been deleted again. Did you decide this was an inaccurate comment?
1
@pwillis1589. It is good to see you have finally stopped using your abusive language.
1
@pwillis1589. Why has YouTube deleted all your comments about Labor defence spending?
1
@pwillis1589. In the same manner that you clearly endorse the Liberal party and its entrenched bullying behaviour as witnessed by Julia Banks, Julie Bishop, Linda Reynolds, Brittany Higgins, Lucy Gichuhi, Jacqui Lambie, Pauline Hansen, and Cathy Cusack.
1
@pwillis1589. So I have proven that Labour governments showed both economically and politically the strength to defend Australia let's then look at more recent times. Average GDP percentage of budget through the Hawke/Keating governments 1.97%. Under the Howard government 1.78%. Under Gillard/Rudd 1.77%. Abbott talked up a big defence budget but never reached 2% nor did Turnbull. Currently the defence budget under Morrison sits at 2.1%. So the data doesn't even support your argument. Even in recent times Labour has matched and sometimes exceeded LNP spending on defence. Your argument is baseless.
1