Embattled Federal MP Craig Thomson has voted with the coalition to prevent the government gagging shadow treasurer Joe Hockey in parliament.
But the opposition refused to accept his support and withdrew one of its own — senior Liberal MP Christopher Pyne — from the chamber before votes were counted.

More.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8475525/thomson-votes-against-government

angeleyes wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 11:31am:

Embattled Federal MP Craig Thomson has voted with the coalition to prevent the government gagging shadow treasurer Joe Hockey in parliament. But the opposition refused to accept his support and withdrew one of its own — senior Liberal MP Christopher Pyne — from the chamber before votes were counted. More. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8475525/thomson-votes-against-government

Well. Some actual ethics from the libs. Whodda thunkit. Wonder what they are up to? Prolly trying to get their polls back in order.

It was obviously a setup anyway with thomson even doing it.

SOB

I always wondered what they meant by refusing a vote as they clearly have no right to do it.

In effect that did not refuse his vote - his vote was counted all they have done is to offset the impact of having him vote with them.

It is understandable that nobody wants Hockey gagged more than the Liberals.

If Labor raised a motion to not gag Hockey the Liberals would vote against it.

Dnarever wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 11:35am:

I always wondered what they meant by refusing a vote as they clearly have no right to do it. In effect that did not refuse his vote - his vote was counted all they have done is to offset the impact of having him vote with them.

His vote was counted, but the Coalition withdrew one of their own so in effect, the result was that Thomson's vote was nullified. Good to see the Coalition sticking by their beliefs.

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 11:38am:

Dnarever wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:35am: I always wondered what they meant by refusing a vote as they clearly have no right to do it. In effect that did not refuse his vote - his vote was counted all they have done is to offset the impact of having him vote with them. His vote was counted, but the Coalition withdrew one of their own so in effect, the result was that Thomson's vote was nullified. Good to see the Coalition sticking by their beliefs.

Only if their belief is point scoring.

angeleyes wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 11:31am:

Embattled Federal MP Craig Thomson has voted with the coalition to prevent the government gagging shadow treasurer Joe Hockey in parliament. But the opposition refused to accept his support and withdrew one of its own — senior Liberal MP Christopher Pyne — from the chamber before votes were counted. More. http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/8475525/thomson-votes-against-government

Very interesting but you forgot this bit:


Quote:

Opposition Leader Tony Abbott also tried to flee the chamber but Labor Speaker Anna Burke called him back, telling him it was too later and his vote had been counted.

The interesting bit in this story isn't about which way Thomson wanted to vote. It's that both the leader of the party and the leader of opposition business BOTH wanted to abstain from voting down a motion to silence Hockey.

They wanted him gagged as much as the government! WHY???

Is Temporary Tony worried??

Oh.. and for the morons, here is why Thomson crossed the floor:


Quote:

As a matter of principle the independents generally reject gag motions and Mr Thomson may have been adhering to convention.

Also in the same article. Not that I expect you'll have got that far yet.

Dnarever wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 11:45am:

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:38am: Dnarever wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:35am: I always wondered what they meant by refusing a vote as they clearly have no right to do it. In effect that did not refuse his vote - his vote was counted all they have done is to offset the impact of having him vote with them. His vote was counted, but the Coalition withdrew one of their own so in effect, the result was that Thomson's vote was nullified. Good to see the Coalition sticking by their beliefs. Only if their belief is point scoring.

so what do you think was behind THOMO voting with the Libs..????????????????????


come on if you cant see through that I will give up with you dna..I know you are blindsided with this mob but really!!!!!!!!


did you see them all rushing for the doors.. bet they havent moved that fast in years..hahaha

So political debate has come to this.

Maybe the world really is ending this year.

cods wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 11:49am:

Dnarever wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:45am: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:38am: Dnarever wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:35am: I always wondered what they meant by refusing a vote as they clearly have no right to do it. In effect that did not refuse his vote - his vote was counted all they have done is to offset the impact of having him vote with them. His vote was counted, but the Coalition withdrew one of their own so in effect, the result was that Thomson's vote was nullified. Good to see the Coalition sticking by their beliefs. Only if their belief is point scoring. so what do you think was behind THOMO voting with the Libs..???????????????????? come on if you cant see through that I will give up with you dna..I know you are blindsided with this mob but really!!!!!!!! did you see them all rushing for the doors.. bet they havent moved that fast in years..hahaha

so what do you think was behind THOMO voting with the Libs..????????????????????

I actually have no idea about why he did this, maybe he theought that boof should not be gagged or maybe he was just making a point on a nothing issue.

Being a cross bencher he can vote however he likes, maybe he will keep the barstards honest

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 11:53am:

So political debate has come to this. Maybe the world really is ending this year.

Its already ended. This is paradise. You really dont want to see hell.

SOB

Dnarever wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 11:55am:

cods wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:49am: Dnarever wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:45am: Armchair_Politician wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:38am: Dnarever wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:35am: I always wondered what they meant by refusing a vote as they clearly have no right to do it. In effect that did not refuse his vote - his vote was counted all they have done is to offset the impact of having him vote with them. His vote was counted, but the Coalition withdrew one of their own so in effect, the result was that Thomson's vote was nullified. Good to see the Coalition sticking by their beliefs. Only if their belief is point scoring. so what do you think was behind THOMO voting with the Libs..???????????????????? come on if you cant see through that I will give up with you dna..I know you are blindsided with this mob but really!!!!!!!! did you see them all rushing for the doors.. bet they havent moved that fast in years..hahaha so what do you think was behind THOMO voting with the Libs..???????????????????? I actually have no idea about why he did this, maybe he theought that boof should not be gagged or maybe he was just making a point on a nothing issue. Being a cross bencher he can vote however he likes, maybe he will keep the barstards honest

hahahahaha.. so says you.... me I think it was to put the spotlight on the Libs.. make them take a dodgy vote they are appalled by...


do you honestly think he is a cross bencher?????


THOMO AND HONESTY IN THE ONE SENTENCE...


the funniest thing I have read for a long time.

Mr Thomson may have been adhering to convention.


Allow me to help with your lack of comprehension.

may
1    [mey] Show IPA
auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or ( Archaic ) may·est or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might.
1.
(used to express possibility): It may rain.

Something for you to hold onto Gist.

---

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 11:53am:

So political debate has come to this. Maybe the world really is ending this year.

maybe when Valley Boy comes up with the evidence that THOMO is totally innocent and the mean Jacksons are guilty.. we can close this file..

and move on to running the country

angeleyes wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:00pm:

Mr Thomson may have been adhering to convention. Allow me to help with your lack of comprehension. may 1    [mey] Show IPA auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or ( Archaic ) may·est or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might. 1. (used to express possibility): It may rain. Something for you to hold onto Gist.

So what do you think?

SOB

One more time for the dummies. That means you blackdudder:



Gist wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 11:49am:

Quote: Opposition Leader Tony Abbott also tried to flee the chamber but Labor Speaker Anna Burke called him back, telling him it was too later and his vote had been counted. The interesting bit in this story isn't about which way Thomson wanted to vote. It's that both the leader of the party and the leader of opposition business BOTH wanted to abstain from voting down a motion to silence Hockey. They wanted him gagged as much as the government! WHY???

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:02pm:

angeleyes wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:00pm: Mr Thomson may have been adhering to convention. Allow me to help with your lack of comprehension. may 1    [mey] Show IPA auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or ( Archaic ) may·est or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might. 1. (used to express possibility): It may rain. Something for you to hold onto Gist. So what do you think? SOB

Not being Thomson I have NFI.

angeleyes wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:05pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:02pm: angeleyes wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:00pm: Mr Thomson may have been adhering to convention. Allow me to help with your lack of comprehension. may 1    [mey] Show IPA auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or ( Archaic ) may·est or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might. 1. (used to express possibility): It may rain. Something for you to hold onto Gist. So what do you think? SOB Not being Thomson I have NFI.

then maybe he was adhering to convention

SOB

Some more for you Gist.

---

angeleyes wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:08pm:

Some more for you Gist.

So I take it you also have NFI as to why Abbott didn't want to support Hockey.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:06pm:

angeleyes wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:05pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:02pm: angeleyes wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:00pm: Mr Thomson may have been adhering to convention. Allow me to help with your lack of comprehension. may 1    [mey] Show IPA auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or ( Archaic ) may·est or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might. 1. (used to express possibility): It may rain. Something for you to hold onto Gist. So what do you think? SOB Not being Thomson I have NFI. then maybe he was adhering to convention SOB

I don't deal in 'maybes'.

Gist wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:09pm:

angeleyes wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:08pm: Some more for you Gist. So I take it you also have NFI as to why Abbott didn't want to support Hockey.

You keep clutching Gist and I will keep supplying the straws.

---

angeleyes wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:09pm:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:06pm: angeleyes wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:05pm: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:02pm: angeleyes wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:00pm: Mr Thomson may have been adhering to convention. Allow me to help with your lack of comprehension. may 1    [mey] Show IPA auxiliary verb, present singular 1st person may, 2nd may or ( Archaic ) may·est or mayst, 3rd may; present plural may; past might. 1. (used to express possibility): It may rain. Something for you to hold onto Gist. So what do you think? SOB Not being Thomson I have NFI. then maybe he was adhering to convention SOB I don't deal in 'maybes'.

Well maybe you should

Seriously what does that mean? Everything has to be black or white? If you have no idea then its possible isnt it?

SOB

angeleyes wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:12pm:

Gist wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:09pm: angeleyes wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:08pm: Some more for you Gist. So I take it you also have NFI as to why Abbott didn't want to support Hockey. You keep clutching Gist and I will keep supplying the straws.

Excellent. So we've established that you have NFI about anything.  ::)

Pretty average of labor attempting to gag 4 liberal MP's, which they lost the vote on anyway.

I have no problem with the Coalition wanting to negate Thomsons vote.  They have accused Labor of accepting a tainted vote, so they are standing behind their position on that.  I personally think Thomson is doing it for a bit of fun to test them.

Verge wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:25pm:

Pretty average of labor attempting to gag 4 liberal MP's, which they lost the vote on anyway. I have no problem with the Coalition wanting to negate Thomsons vote.  They have accused Labor of accepting a tainted vote, so they are standing behind their position on that.  I personally think Thomson is doing it for a bit of fun to test them.

They always lose the vote. It'd be fairly exceptional in this parliament for them to win such a motion. They even lost it when moving to gag Abbott and Pyne for one of their endless motions for suspension of standing orders. And EVERYBODY is sick to death of those INCLUDING the independants!

They were happy to take Slippers vote for a decade after they knew about his problem?

Mr Thomson has a right to vote how he chooses and the opposition acting in a childish manner has no impact on that right.

Gist wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:29pm:

Verge wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:25pm: Pretty average of labor attempting to gag 4 liberal MP's, which they lost the vote on anyway. I have no problem with the Coalition wanting to negate Thomsons vote.  They have accused Labor of accepting a tainted vote, so they are standing behind their position on that.  I personally think Thomson is doing it for a bit of fun to test them. They always lose the vote. It'd be fairly exceptional in this parliament for them to win such a motion. They even lost it when moving to gag Abbott and Pyne for one of their endless motions for suspension of standing orders. And EVERYBODY is sick to death of those INCLUDING the independants!

Like I said, I think its Thomo taking the piss to see how they react.

Dnarever wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 11:38am:

It is understandable that nobody wants Hockey gagged more than the Liberals. If Labor raised a motion to not gag Hockey the Liberals would vote against it.

What the?

Are you saying the LIBs want HOckey gagged in context of this thread?

Maqqa wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:44pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:38am: It is understandable that nobody wants Hockey gagged more than the Liberals. If Labor raised a motion to not gag Hockey the Liberals would vote against it. What the? Are you saying the LIBs want HOckey gagged in context of this thread?

I doubt he even knows about this thread.

Evey time Hockey opens his mouth he embareses them of course they all want him gagged.

Abbott can take the ear plugs out.

Dnarever wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:57pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 12:44pm: Dnarever wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:38am: It is understandable that nobody wants Hockey gagged more than the Liberals. If Labor raised a motion to not gag Hockey the Liberals would vote against it. What the? Are you saying the LIBs want HOckey gagged in context of this thread? I doubt he even knows about this thread. Evey time Hockey opens his mouth he embareses them of course they all want him gagged. Abbott can take the ear plugs out.

I am not asking whether Hockey knows about this thread

I am asking what you meant by your comment about the LIBs wanting to gag Hockey in context of this thread

So what's the answer? or won't you answer?

Cant help but think that after this display of petulance, if a News Poll was conducted tomorrow, Abbott's popularity would reach a new low record.

;D

cods wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 12:01pm:

Dirty Paki Khunt wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:53am: So political debate has come to this. Maybe the world really is ending this year. maybe when Valley Boy comes up with the evidence that THOMO is totally innocent and the mean Jacksons are guilty.. we can close this file.. and move on to running the country

You call this running the country? The country's running along fine.

The trivial tabloid hype that has become the business of politics is just getting in the way.

Quote:

Mr Thomson taunted Mr Abbott, saying he should cross the floor and sit on the Labor side 'if he is truly negating my vote'."

;D ;D ;D :D ;D :D ;D

PMSL, fair point Craig

Smithy - read that FWA Report about what that guy did with the money of the lowest paid people in Australia and see if you can still smile at Thomson's antics.

Frankly the guy makes me sick.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 2:17pm:

Smithy - read that FWA Report about what that guy did with the money of the lowest paid people in Australia and see if you can still smile at Thomson's antics. Frankly the guy makes me sick.

Andrei read this, all is not what those with an agenda would like,

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/thomson-6-the-falling-few-and-the-fall-guy/

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 2:12pm:

Quote: Mr Thomson taunted Mr Abbott, saying he should cross the floor and sit on the Labor side 'if he is truly negating my vote'." ;D ;D ;D :D ;D :D ;D PMSL, fair point Craig

No it's not. Its a stupid point.

Pyne left the room, and Abbott tried to aswell. By two people leaving it would have balanced the votes, just like Thomson is arguing. So what exactly does he want?

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 2:21pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 2:17pm: Smithy - read that FWA Report about what that guy did with the money of the lowest paid people in Australia and see if you can still smile at Thomson's antics. Frankly the guy makes me sick. Andrei read this, all is not what those with an agenda would like, http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/thomson-6-the-falling-few-and-the-fall-guy/

To be fair mate, I have read a fair bit of the FWA Report for myself without the media spin.
Not all of it obviously - a 600 page report is not exactly bed time reading.

But have you seen the actual evidence they have?

It's nailed on he spent the money of those members who did shifts cleaning up people's sh*t in hospitals for a pittance - and he spent it on 5 star hotels and hookers.

Seriously, is this a decent bloke in your mind?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 2:30pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 2:21pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 2:17pm: Smithy - read that FWA Report about what that guy did with the money of the lowest paid people in Australia and see if you can still smile at Thomson's antics. Frankly the guy makes me sick. Andrei read this, all is not what those with an agenda would like, http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/thomson-6-the-falling-few-and-the-fall-guy/ To be fair mate, I have read a fair bit of the FWA Report for myself without the media spin. Not all of it obviously - a 600 page report is not exactly bed time reading. But have you seen the actual evidence they have? It's nailed on he spent the money of those members who did shifts cleaning up people's sh*t in hospitals for a pittance - and he spent it on 5 star hotels and hookers. Seriously, is this a decent bloke in your mind?

To be fair mate , did you even look at the link I've provided.

To come to your specific allegation regarding money spent,


Quote:

There are those who have pointed out to me that, according to the Murdoch press, Craig Thomson has over $500,000 worth of union money to explain. Many of these people point out that the approximately $26,000 of questionable Union funds that we have exposed – which Craig’s accuser Kathy Jackson needs to explain – is small-fry in comparison. Contrary to those assertions, the Australian Electoral Commission has cleared has, in fact, cleared most of the accusations about Craig’s electoral funding, which apparently made up the bulk of the $500,000. This in turn has brought the amount of unexplained funding down to about $17,000.

So by my reckoning that makes Thomson's accuser a 9K bigger thief

But would you agree that the evidence that he spent union money on call girls on 4 separate occasions pretty compelling?

If you want to see the pages of the FWA report with that evidence, it is pretty black and white.

[highlight][To be fair mate , did you even look at the link I've provided./highlight]


You mean THAT link. The one that is shooting the messenger.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 2:53pm:

But would you agree that the evidence that he spent union money on call girls on 4 separate occasions pretty compelling? If you want to see the pages of the FWA report with that evidence, it is pretty black and white.

1. Sex with prostitutes is not illegal.

2. Now I seem to have shown you that his accuser is a bigger thief of the "lowest paid workers" you come back with what the ill gotten gains were spent on not the fact it's stolen.

Disappointing Andrei I thought you were neutral.

Now I seem to have shown you that his accuser is a bigger thief of the "lowest paid workers" you come back with what the ill gotten gains were spent on not the fact it's stolen.


You have shown nothing of the sort.

You have found something on the internet that supports your lefty views and run with it.

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 3:02pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 2:53pm: But would you agree that the evidence that he spent union money on call girls on 4 separate occasions pretty compelling? If you want to see the pages of the FWA report with that evidence, it is pretty black and white. 1. Sex with prostitutes is not illegal. 2. Now I seem to have shown you that his accuser is a bigger thief of the "lowest paid workers" you come back with what the ill gotten gains were spent on not the fact it's stolen. Disappointing Andrei I thought you were neutral.

I am neutral, I am not sure how is accuser is on 'my side' wherever that may be.
They were after all, on the same union.

Sex with prostitutes using the cash of union members - is not company business (unless you are Hugh Heffner) and therefore is embezzlement.

Mate I am neutral - I hate thieves and scumbags no matter where they sit in parliament.

angeleyes wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 3:00pm:

[highlight][To be fair mate , did you even look at the link I've provided./highlight] You mean THAT link. The one that is shooting the messenger.

What messenger?

Kathy Jackson?

Why can't we question her motives?

The character of witnesses & whistle blowers is called into question all the time.

You seriously believe Kathy Jackson and I would be on the same side politically?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 3:20pm:

You seriously believe Kathy Jackson and I would be on the same side politically?

No but I did find it interesting that you jumped to her defence, well ignored the stench surrounding her at least.

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 2:12pm:

Quote: Mr Thomson taunted Mr Abbott, saying he should cross the floor and sit on the Labor side 'if he is truly negating my vote'." ;D ;D ;D :D ;D :D ;D PMSL, fair point Craig

That makes no sense. The Coalition have said that his vote should not be counted, PERIOD.

They've had the courage of their convictions on that, too.

I see matty is filling on for longy !!!

.... oh, lol!!  :D :D

But why run? lol!

SOB

Dnarever wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 11:35am:

I always wondered what they meant by refusing a vote as they clearly have no right to do it. In effect that did not refuse his vote - his vote was counted all they have done is to offset the impact of having him vote with them.

and the difference is what? the PRINCIPLE at play is that they refuse to accept his tainted vote and they did so using the only constitutional mans possible. Just as Howard did with Colston and labor has done with... no one.

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 4:58pm:

I see matty is filling on for longy !!! .... oh, lol!!  :D :D

How? Because we both point out Labor's total lack of integrity in accepting this sleaze's tainted vote?

matty wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:43pm:

BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 4:58pm: I see matty is filling on for longy !!! .... oh, lol!!  :D :D How? Because we both point out Labor's total lack of integrity in accepting this sleaze's tainted vote?

Remember we are discussing PRINCIPLE here... you might as well be discussing particle physics with these bozos

matty wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 4:55pm:

Dsmithy70 wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 2:12pm: Quote: Mr Thomson taunted Mr Abbott, saying he should cross the floor and sit on the Labor side 'if he is truly negating my vote'." ;D ;D ;D :D ;D :D ;D PMSL, fair point Craig That makes no sense. The Coalition have said that his vote should not be counted, PERIOD. They've had the courage of their convictions on that, too.

poor lefties they cant comprehend convictions and integrity matty...its not in their bible.

longweekend58 wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:47pm:

matty wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 5:43pm: BatteriesNotIncluded wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 4:58pm: I see matty is filling on for longy !!! .... oh, lol!!  :D :D How? Because we both point out Labor's total lack of integrity in accepting this sleaze's tainted vote? Remember we are discussing PRINCIPLE here... you might as well be discussing particle physics with these bozos

didnt see that longy well said..


isnt it strange how they will walk on water to find excuse for THOMO..all the while not supporting him of course??? LOL..

its cringe worthy and sad.. they guy is now there disrupting parliament on top of everything else he has done.. and they laugh they think its funny    damn sure I dont

Thomsons Gazelle:

http://www.ratestogo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/thomsons-gazelle.jpg

Will Prissy do another runner today?  ;D ;D

Gist wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 8:25am:

Thomsons Gazelle: http://www.ratestogo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/thomsons-gazelle.jpg Will Prissy do another runner today?  ;D ;D

teflon would say it better..LOL

What else do you expect from the turd known as phony Tony? he prides himself on being a trained attack dog, in this case he just dogged it.

longweekend58 wrote on May 30^th, 2012 at 5:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on May 30th, 2012 at 11:35am: I always wondered what they meant by refusing a vote as they clearly have no right to do it. In effect that did not refuse his vote - his vote was counted all they have done is to offset the impact of having him vote with them. and the difference is what? the PRINCIPLE at play is that they refuse to accept his tainted vote and they did so using the only constitutional mans possible. Just as Howard did with Colston and labor has done with... no one.

the PRINCIPLE

Only if the PRINCIPLE is political gain because that is what it is abboutt.

All elected representatives are entitled to a vote - All that Abbnott has done is to once again attempt to undermine our democracy.

This was a childish politically motivated cowardly attempted runner.

Has Abbnot decieded that the people of Dobel can no longer be represented in the Australian Parlament?

Answer: Yes he has.

Dnarever wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 9:58am:

Has Abbnot decieded that the people of Dobel can no longer be represented in the Australian Parlament? Answer: Yes he has.

Unlike you to take a position critical of the Coalition.
Out of interest do you decide which side you will support in an argument by the players than the argument itself?

You're like Buzz only more intelligent.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on May 31^st, 2012 at 10:08am:

Dnarever wrote on May 31st, 2012 at 9:58am: Has Abbnot decieded that the people of Dobel can no longer be represented in the Australian Parlament? Answer: Yes he has. Unlike you to take a position critical of the Coalition. Out of interest do you decide which side you will support in an argument by the players than the argument itself? You're like Buzz only more intelligent.

Unlike you to take a position critical of the Coalition.

No not really I did it once before I think.

Out of interest do you decide which side you will support in an argument by the players than the argument itself?

The same could be said about you but I suspect that would also be incorrect.

I have made it clear that I will not vote Labor in the next election, I have disagreed with their position on several issues which you apparently fail to notice and on other points of disagreement I simply do not post a comment.

You're like Buzz only more intelligent

I would think Buzz more intelligent than myself at least equal

To look at a similar comparison it could be said that you are like Macca or LW but but try to appear more open minded.


Can't help ut notice that you play the man and not the ball when it is obvious that your side got it wrong.

Abbott can't prevent the people of Dobel from having a say through their MP's vote.

So his answer is to take away the right of representation from voters in Pyne's electorate, or even his own.

Yes, that makes sense.    :o