Lets run a simple hypothetical.

Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even.

Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal??


See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house.

Would she not think gee somethings not right here??

Young and naive?? or in on the con??

When you are a partner in a law firm you would think nothing of it, because you get that position because you are dumb. When you are 35, you are young and naive like a 15 year old, not old and worldly like a 35 year old.

woof woof wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:26am:

Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con??

Maybe Gillard isn't as stupid as you, Matty, maybe she thought her ex bought the house with a mortgage like 99.9% of people do. ::) wow how do you manage to remember to breath?

skippy. wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:28am:

woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? Maybe Gillard isn't as stupid as you, Matty, maybe she thought her ex bought the house with a mortgage like 99.9% of people do. ::) wow how do you manage to remember to breath?

Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see.

bought a house paying with a cheque drawn on a AWU acc that Gillard in her owns words called a slush fund???


good mortgage that?? can I get one too.

Ms Bishop told parliament Mr Blewitt had stated publicly he did not sign the power of attorney on that date and he did not sign it in Ms Gillard's presence.

The power of attorney was used to help secure a mortgage of $150,000 borrowed through Slater & Gordon, Ms Gillard's then employer, for the purchase of a property at 85 Kerr Street, Fitzroy, in early 1993. The balance of the money required, as well as stamp duty, came from cheques drawn directly from the slush fund.*********************************************************************


here is what Gillard told parliament, are you saying Bishop is lying?? because you know what misleading parliament means don't you???


who do we believd the spinning pole dancer Skippy or cold hard evidence shown to parliament???

woof woof wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:26am:

Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con??

There could be any number of factors you arent privy to. Like inheritance or legal proceeds from suing someone or etc etc.

SOB

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:29am:

skippy. wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:28am: woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? Maybe Gillard isn't as stupid as you, Matty, maybe she thought her ex bought the house with a mortgage like 99.9% of people do. ::) wow how do you manage to remember to breath? Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see.

Link to it?

SOB

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:29am:

skippy. wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:28am: woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? Maybe Gillard isn't as stupid as you, Matty, maybe she thought her ex bought the house with a mortgage like 99.9% of people do. ::) wow how do you manage to remember to breath? Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see.

Here ya go loser, the PM agrees with me.


Quote:

She believed Mr Blewitt had purchased the property "with a mortgage like an ordinary person to purchase the property".

woof woof wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:26am:

Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con??

starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house.

A lot of people buy a house - the police must be very busy.

skippy. wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:43am:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:29am: skippy. wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:28am: woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? Maybe Gillard isn't as stupid as you, Matty, maybe she thought her ex bought the house with a mortgage like 99.9% of people do. ::) wow how do you manage to remember to breath? Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see. Here ya go loser, the PM agrees with me. Quote: She believed Mr Blewitt had purchased the property "with a mortgage like an ordinary person to purchase the property".

Well she was doing the conveyance wasn't she. Did he or didnt he. The documentation tells a different story, so is gillard lying or is she being a young and naive 50 year old prime minister.

If she was doing the conveyencing, and having worked in a bank for a long time I can tell you that the conveyencing solicitors are in regular contact with the bank, they get the loan papers they get lots of other paperwork from the bank aswell.

She would have seen the loan documentation, the amount, the borrowers names, the sellers names, whether the bank held security on this house or whether other forms of security were held against the loan??


She would have seen the loan paperwork if she was doing the conveyencing, you twit. There was NO loan, it was paid for by funds from cheques drawn on the slush fund, which is there for all who are not blind to see.

Skippy and a few others choose not to see what is there.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:29am:

skippy. wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:28am: woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? Maybe Gillard isn't as stupid as you, Matty, maybe she thought her ex bought the house with a mortgage like 99.9% of people do. ::) wow how do you manage to remember to breath? Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see.

hilarious the bloke that bought it Blewitt didnt know anything about it...

he didnt find out he had bought this house until a writer told him...

there are so many questions that havent been asked...

like why didnt she report to the police when she found out her naughty little married boyfriend.. was a crook..when she was young and naive... a lawyer and about 35 years old...god it makes you wonder doesnt it??

she really cant believe half the nation doesnt swallow that tale..


wilson had power of attorney and a house was bought in someone elses name with money from the Law firm and all signed by someone who had power of attorney...so wilson must have been the one to organise the loan and front up to G&S  why would G&S lend money to wilson????.. using someone else name..???????????????????

so we can presume that wilson also sold the house that Blewitt bought without his knowledge.

Gillard is a criminal and Abbott is a violent abusive wife beater..you duopoly supporters are sure voting for the cream of the crop  ;D

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:39am:

woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? There could be any number of factors you arent privy to. Like inheritance or legal proceeds from suing someone or etc etc. SOB

most wealth is inherited!

Dnarever wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:43am:

woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. A lot of people buy a house - the police must be very busy.

My wife once worked with a man who embezzled $28M from Flinders Uni. He earned $60K a pear and hard no family money. I question how his wife (or anyone else for that matter) didnt know something was awry when he bought a $3M house (in adelaide no less), half of the Adelaide 36ers and more...

I refuse to believe anyone can be THAT naive.

He is still in jail

Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime?

gold_medal wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 6:02pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:43am: woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. A lot of people buy a house - the police must be very busy. My wife once worked with a man who embezzled $28M from Flinders Uni. He earned $60K a pear and hard no family money. I question how his wife (or anyone else for that matter) didnt know something was awry when he bought a $3M house (in adelaide no less), half of the Adelaide 36ers and more... I refuse to believe anyone can be THAT naive. He is still in jail

Was the fitZroy house $3m and Wilson earned 60k a year?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:12pm:

Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime?

What's a lunch mob?

But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling?

gold_medal wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:15pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling?

He means a lynch mob - dopey.

gold_medal wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:15pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling?

Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D.

And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here? 

I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct. 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:17pm:

gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.

My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here.

skippy. wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:28am:

woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? Maybe Gillard isn't as stupid as you, Matty, maybe she thought her ex bought the house with a mortgage like 99.9% of people do. ::) wow how do you manage to remember to breath?

lucky breathing is controlled by involuntary muscles .....

gold_medal wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 6:02pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:43am: woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. A lot of people buy a house - the police must be very busy. My wife once worked with a man who embezzled $28M from Flinders Uni. He earned $60K a pear and hard no family money. I question how his wife (or anyone else for that matter) didnt know something was awry when he bought a $3M house (in adelaide no less), half of the Adelaide 36ers and more... I refuse to believe anyone can be THAT naive. He is still in jail

Hard no money?  What a goose!  ;D

(ps, now that we've had our laugh at spelling wanna get back to arguing the actual issue?)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:20pm:

gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 6:02pm: Dnarever wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:43am: woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. A lot of people buy a house - the police must be very busy. My wife once worked with a man who embezzled $28M from Flinders Uni. He earned $60K a pear and hard no family money. I question how his wife (or anyone else for that matter) didnt know something was awry when he bought a $3M house (in adelaide no less), half of the Adelaide 36ers and more... I refuse to believe anyone can be THAT naive. He is still in jail Hard no money?  What a goose!  ;D (ps, now that we've had our laugh at spelling wanna get back to arguing the actual issue?)

sure... as soon as you tll me what you were trying to say coz it wasnt very clear - even correcting for bad spelling!

gold_medal wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:19pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here.

The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air.

So why wont she answer questions raised in parliament??????

shes a filthy lying witch.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:24pm:

gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air.

Well now that post is actually understandable.

And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element.

Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either.

Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules.

Next...

gold_medal wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:28pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next...

People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament. 

And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime? 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:32pm:

gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime?

No-one has to prove guilt. The PM however needs to answer the questions put to her.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:44pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime?  No-one has to prove guilt. The PM however needs to answer the questions put to her.

Actually the state needs to prove guilt.  That's how it works.  Go look up how the legal system works.  And I totally agree that if gillard is charged by te policy and fronts the courts than she must answer questions posed of her.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:53pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime?  No-one has to prove guilt. The PM however needs to answer the questions put to her. Actually the state needs to prove guilt.  That's how it works.  Go look up how the legal system works.  And I totally agree that if gillard is charged by te policy and fronts the courts than she must answer questions posed of her.

The PM is suppose to answer questions and truthfully. She will not answer at all, because she knows what will happen if she does answer truthfully or more so if she does not tell the truth.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:56pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:53pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime?  No-one has to prove guilt. The PM however needs to answer the questions put to her. Actually the state needs to prove guilt.  That's how it works.  Go look up how the legal system works.  And I totally agree that if gillard is charged by te policy and fronts the courts than she must answer questions posed of her. The PM is suppose to answer questions and truthfully. She will not answer at all, because she knows what will happen if she does answer truthfully or more so if she does not tell the truth.

I agree, the pm must answer questions posed relating to national interest and policy.  Questions asked that may relate to a criminal matter are asked by police and prosecters.  Not by an alleged plagiarist.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:59pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:56pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:53pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime?  No-one has to prove guilt. The PM however needs to answer the questions put to her. Actually the state needs to prove guilt.  That's how it works.  Go look up how the legal system works.  And I totally agree that if gillard is charged by te policy and fronts the courts than she must answer questions posed of her. The PM is suppose to answer questions and truthfully. She will not answer at all, because she knows what will happen if she does answer truthfully or more so if she does not tell the truth. I agree, the pm must answer questions posed relating to national interest and policy.  Questions asked that may relate to a criminal matter are asked by police and prosecters.  Not by an alleged plagiarist.

Not at all. It is up to parliament to find out if our PM is lying. The documentation suggests our PM has been lying as recent as August.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:01pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:56pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:53pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime?  No-one has to prove guilt. The PM however needs to answer the questions put to her. Actually the state needs to prove guilt.  That's how it works.  Go look up how the legal system works.  And I totally agree that if gillard is charged by te policy and fronts the courts than she must answer questions posed of her. The PM is suppose to answer questions and truthfully. She will not answer at all, because she knows what will happen if she does answer truthfully or more so if she does not tell the truth. I agree, the pm must answer questions posed relating to national interest and policy.  Questions asked that may relate to a criminal matter are asked by police and prosecters.  Not by an alleged plagiarist. Not at all. It is up to parliament to find out if our PM is lying. The documentation suggests our PM has been lying as recent as August.

As usual wrong.  It's the oppositions role to keep te government to account on policy matters.  It's up to the state prosecters and police to raise criminal matters. 

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:04pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:01pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:56pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:53pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime?  No-one has to prove guilt. The PM however needs to answer the questions put to her. Actually the state needs to prove guilt.  That's how it works.  Go look up how the legal system works.  And I totally agree that if gillard is charged by te policy and fronts the courts than she must answer questions posed of her. The PM is suppose to answer questions and truthfully. She will not answer at all, because she knows what will happen if she does answer truthfully or more so if she does not tell the truth. I agree, the pm must answer questions posed relating to national interest and policy.  Questions asked that may relate to a criminal matter are asked by police and prosecters.  Not by an alleged plagiarist. Not at all. It is up to parliament to find out if our PM is lying. The documentation suggests our PM has been lying as recent as August. As usual wrong.  It's the oppositions role to keep te government to account on policy matters.  It's up to the state prosecters and police to raise criminal matters.

You are not getting it are you. They are not asking the PM did she do something that was a crime. Bishop is asking why is the PM lying. Can the PM tell us the truth instead. That is their job, to make the PM answer questions truthfully. Any question of something of importance, not just policy.

I will make it simple for you alevine.

The PM lied in a press conference in which the PM presented the conference in the capacity of PM. If in the capacity of the PM and lying at the same time, the PM has to answer why she lied while in the capacity of the PM.

Get it.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:06pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:01pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:56pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:53pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime?  No-one has to prove guilt. The PM however needs to answer the questions put to her. Actually the state needs to prove guilt.  That's how it works.  Go look up how the legal system works.  And I totally agree that if gillard is charged by te policy and fronts the courts than she must answer questions posed of her. The PM is suppose to answer questions and truthfully. She will not answer at all, because she knows what will happen if she does answer truthfully or more so if she does not tell the truth. I agree, the pm must answer questions posed relating to national interest and policy.  Questions asked that may relate to a criminal matter are asked by police and prosecters.  Not by an alleged plagiarist. Not at all. It is up to parliament to find out if our PM is lying. The documentation suggests our PM has been lying as recent as August. As usual wrong.  It's the oppositions role to keep te government to account on policy matters.  It's up to the state prosecters and police to raise criminal matters.  You are not getting it are you. They are not asking the PM did she do something that was a crime. Bishop is asking why is the PM lying. Can the PM tell us the truth instead. That is their job, to make the PM answer questions truthfully. Any question of something of importance, not just policy.

You just aren't getting it ;D.  The opposition has no role to play in being the police or prosecuters.  If they think Gillard is lying in a criminal matter than they need to provide that evidence to the right authorities.  There is a fraud investigation.  I'm sure they would be only too happy to hear what evidence Bishop has.  But the parliament is not a criminal court.  And Bishop has no place to try to raise her own charges on someone. 

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:10pm:

I will make it simple for you alevine. The PM lied in a press conference in which the PM presented the conference in the capacity of PM. If in the capacity of the PM and lying at the same time, the PM has to answer why she lied while in the capacity of the PM. Get it.

If there is evidence to suggest Gillard was not being truthful in her role than I'm sure the fraud investigators would love to get their hands on that evidence, and do what they feel is necessary with that evidence.

Get it? ;D

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:11pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:01pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:56pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:53pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime?  No-one has to prove guilt. The PM however needs to answer the questions put to her. Actually the state needs to prove guilt.  That's how it works.  Go look up how the legal system works.  And I totally agree that if gillard is charged by te policy and fronts the courts than she must answer questions posed of her. The PM is suppose to answer questions and truthfully. She will not answer at all, because she knows what will happen if she does answer truthfully or more so if she does not tell the truth. I agree, the pm must answer questions posed relating to national interest and policy.  Questions asked that may relate to a criminal matter are asked by police and prosecters.  Not by an alleged plagiarist. Not at all. It is up to parliament to find out if our PM is lying. The documentation suggests our PM has been lying as recent as August. As usual wrong.  It's the oppositions role to keep te government to account on policy matters.  It's up to the state prosecters and police to raise criminal matters.  You are not getting it are you. They are not asking the PM did she do something that was a crime. Bishop is asking why is the PM lying. Can the PM tell us the truth instead. That is their job, to make the PM answer questions truthfully. Any question of something of importance, not just policy. You just aren't getting it ;D.  The opposition has no role to play in being the police or prosecuters.  If they think Gillard is lying in a criminal matter than they need to provide that evidence to the right authorities.  There is a fraud investigation.  I'm sure they would be only too happy to hear what evidence Bishop has.  But the parliament is not a criminal court.  And Bishop has no place to try to raise her own charges on someone.

The opposition has a duty to call out the PM while in the capacity of the PM, lies to the people.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:12pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:10pm: I will make it simple for you alevine. The PM lied in a press conference in which the PM presented the conference in the capacity of PM. If in the capacity of the PM and lying at the same time, the PM has to answer why she lied while in the capacity of the PM. Get it. If there is evidence to suggest Gillard was not being truthful in her role than I'm sure the fraud investigators would love to get their hands on that evidence, and do what they feel is necessary with that evidence. Get it? ;D

No, all she has to do is answer the questions in parliament. What the authorities do is their business.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:12pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:11pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:01pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:56pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:53pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime?  No-one has to prove guilt. The PM however needs to answer the questions put to her. Actually the state needs to prove guilt.  That's how it works.  Go look up how the legal system works.  And I totally agree that if gillard is charged by te policy and fronts the courts than she must answer questions posed of her. The PM is suppose to answer questions and truthfully. She will not answer at all, because she knows what will happen if she does answer truthfully or more so if she does not tell the truth. I agree, the pm must answer questions posed relating to national interest and policy.  Questions asked that may relate to a criminal matter are asked by police and prosecters.  Not by an alleged plagiarist. Not at all. It is up to parliament to find out if our PM is lying. The documentation suggests our PM has been lying as recent as August. As usual wrong.  It's the oppositions role to keep te government to account on policy matters.  It's up to the state prosecters and police to raise criminal matters.  You are not getting it are you. They are not asking the PM did she do something that was a crime. Bishop is asking why is the PM lying. Can the PM tell us the truth instead. That is their job, to make the PM answer questions truthfully. Any question of something of importance, not just policy. You just aren't getting it ;D.  The opposition has no role to play in being the police or prosecuters.  If they think Gillard is lying in a criminal matter than they need to provide that evidence to the right authorities.  There is a fraud investigation.  I'm sure they would be only too happy to hear what evidence Bishop has.  But the parliament is not a criminal court.  And Bishop has no place to try to raise her own charges on someone.  The opposition has a duty to call out the PM while in the capacity of the PM, lies to the people.

If the opposition has evidence that the PM lied about a criminal matter, than they have a duty to provide that evidence to the police. That is what role they have to play. Not the role of prosecuter or judge or jury or executioner.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:13pm:

No, all she has to do is answer the questions in parliament. What the authorities do is their business.

Well no she doesn't. She has to answer the question, if there is a question to be asked, in the right forum. And parliament isn't that forum.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:13pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:12pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:11pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:01pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:56pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:53pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:44pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime?  No-one has to prove guilt. The PM however needs to answer the questions put to her. Actually the state needs to prove guilt.  That's how it works.  Go look up how the legal system works.  And I totally agree that if gillard is charged by te policy and fronts the courts than she must answer questions posed of her. The PM is suppose to answer questions and truthfully. She will not answer at all, because she knows what will happen if she does answer truthfully or more so if she does not tell the truth. I agree, the pm must answer questions posed relating to national interest and policy.  Questions asked that may relate to a criminal matter are asked by police and prosecters.  Not by an alleged plagiarist. Not at all. It is up to parliament to find out if our PM is lying. The documentation suggests our PM has been lying as recent as August. As usual wrong.  It's the oppositions role to keep te government to account on policy matters.  It's up to the state prosecters and police to raise criminal matters.  You are not getting it are you. They are not asking the PM did she do something that was a crime. Bishop is asking why is the PM lying. Can the PM tell us the truth instead. That is their job, to make the PM answer questions truthfully. Any question of something of importance, not just policy. You just aren't getting it ;D.  The opposition has no role to play in being the police or prosecuters.  If they think Gillard is lying in a criminal matter than they need to provide that evidence to the right authorities.  There is a fraud investigation.  I'm sure they would be only too happy to hear what evidence Bishop has.  But the parliament is not a criminal court.  And Bishop has no place to try to raise her own charges on someone.  The opposition has a duty to call out the PM while in the capacity of the PM, lies to the people. If the opposition has evidence that the PM lied about a criminal matter, than they have a duty to provide that evidence to the police. That is what role they have to play. Not the role of prosecuter or judge or jury or executioner.

They dont know it is  criminal matter until the PM answers the questions.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:14pm:

They dont know it is  criminal matter until the PM answers the questions.

Well then it's up to the police and prosecuters to find out if there is a criminal matter and to press charges.  But the PM has the right to a presumption of innocence.  My point exactly - thank you for agreeing!

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:16pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:14pm: They dont know it is  criminal matter until the PM answers the questions. Well then it's up to the police and prosecuters to find out if there is a criminal matter and to press charges.  But the PM has the right to a presumption of innocence.  My point exactly - thank you for agreeing!

Why. Is it a criminal matter? Thats news.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:17pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:14pm: They dont know it is  criminal matter until the PM answers the questions. Well then it's up to the police and prosecuters to find out if there is a criminal matter and to press charges.  But the PM has the right to a presumption of innocence.  My point exactly - thank you for agreeing! Why. Is it a criminal matter? Thats news.

The actual AWU scandal? Last I checked fraud was a criminal matter. And if Gillard knowingly participated in it, and the police/prosecuters have evidence to that effect then by all means ask the questions and by all means press charges. Not up to Bishop though. Last I checked she was just an accused plagiarist  opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman without a clue in the world of what her job entails.  It's actually kind of interesting that a person with the experience of being a minister in a government still hasn't got a clue on how to do their job after what, 9 years?

What about Gillard witnessing a signature on a power of attorney when it was signe din WA but Gillard was in Vic, she didn't witness it being signed??

whats your defence of that, its been proven by those who signed it that Gillard was not present???
she was 3000Km away???

Is that the actions of a partner in a law firm, or again is she just young and naive??

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:19pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:14pm: They dont know it is  criminal matter until the PM answers the questions. Well then it's up to the police and prosecuters to find out if there is a criminal matter and to press charges.  But the PM has the right to a presumption of innocence.  My point exactly - thank you for agreeing! Why. Is it a criminal matter? Thats news. The actual AWU scandal? Last I checked fraud was a criminal matter. And if Gillard knowingly participated in it, and the police/prosecuters have evidence to that effect then by all means ask the questions and by all means press charges. Not up to Bishop though. Last I checked she was just an accused plagiarist  opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman without a clue in the world of what her job entails.  It's actually kind of interesting that a person with the experience of being a minister in a government still hasn't got a clue on how to do their job after what, 9 years?

No, the liberals are asking the PM about her answers in relation to the press conference the PM held in the capacity of PM. They state the PM lied in the act of being PM in relation to answers given to the public.

There are some questions never asked and the PM does not answer them but they would be the questions you are talking about.

woof woof wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:22pm:

What about Gillard witnessing a signature on a power of attorney when it was signe din WA but Gillard was in Vic, she didn't witness it being signed?? whats your defence of that, its been proven by those who signed it that Gillard was not present??? she was 3000Km away??? Is that the actions of a partner in a law firm, or again is she just young and naive??

Oh sigh once again lynchy, if there is accusation of a crime then let the police handle it.  You can do all the theories you want but the fact remains that Gillard has provided public statements, without even a need to do so, and if these statements were inaccurate and there is evidence to suggest her involvement in the scandal then the police should press charges.  It's as simple as that. A person is charged with criminal activity based on evidence. Not based on "What about this though! What about that though?" 

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:24pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:19pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:17pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:16pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:14pm: They dont know it is  criminal matter until the PM answers the questions. Well then it's up to the police and prosecuters to find out if there is a criminal matter and to press charges.  But the PM has the right to a presumption of innocence.  My point exactly - thank you for agreeing! Why. Is it a criminal matter? Thats news. The actual AWU scandal? Last I checked fraud was a criminal matter. And if Gillard knowingly participated in it, and the police/prosecuters have evidence to that effect then by all means ask the questions and by all means press charges. Not up to Bishop though. Last I checked she was just an accused plagiarist  opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman without a clue in the world of what her job entails.  It's actually kind of interesting that a person with the experience of being a minister in a government still hasn't got a clue on how to do their job after what, 9 years? No, the liberals are asking the PM about her answers in relation to the press conference the PM held in the capacity of PM. They state the PM lied in the act of being PM in relation to answers given to the public. There are some questions never asked and the PM does not answer them but they would be the questions you are talking about.

Nope Gillard chose to answer the questions in the capacity of a person standing accused of something. She didn't have to. But she chose to.  And it's a criminal matter that the police need to handle. Not bishop.

keep trying.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:25pm:

woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:22pm: What about Gillard witnessing a signature on a power of attorney when it was signe din WA but Gillard was in Vic, she didn't witness it being signed?? whats your defence of that, its been proven by those who signed it that Gillard was not present??? she was 3000Km away??? Is that the actions of a partner in a law firm, or again is she just young and naive?? Oh sigh once again lynchy, if there is accusation of a crime then let the police handle it.  You can do all the theories you want but the fact remains that Gillard has provided public statements, without even a need to do so, and if these statements were inaccurate and there is evidence to suggest her involvement in the scandal then the police should press charges.  It's as simple as that. A person is charged with criminal activity based on evidence. Not based on "What about this though! What about that though?"

To which the PM lied to the public in stark contrast to actual documentation and dates. To which the opposition has a duty to know if the PM lied to the public.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:26pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:25pm: woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:22pm: What about Gillard witnessing a signature on a power of attorney when it was signe din WA but Gillard was in Vic, she didn't witness it being signed?? whats your defence of that, its been proven by those who signed it that Gillard was not present??? she was 3000Km away??? Is that the actions of a partner in a law firm, or again is she just young and naive?? Oh sigh once again lynchy, if there is accusation of a crime then let the police handle it.  You can do all the theories you want but the fact remains that Gillard has provided public statements, without even a need to do so, and if these statements were inaccurate and there is evidence to suggest her involvement in the scandal then the police should press charges.  It's as simple as that. A person is charged with criminal activity based on evidence. Not based on "What about this though! What about that though?"  To which the PM lied to the public in stark contrast to actual documentation and dates. To which the opposition has a duty to know if the PM lied to the public.

Round and round in circles we go I see. The opposition has a duty to know if the PM and the government are not being accurate or truthful on policy or national interest.   

And if there is evidence that Gillard was lying about her involvement in this criminal activity then the police need to act on it.  Not bishop.

Goodo...........

Let's see all this documentation.....right here, and now.


Quote:

Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see.

;)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:28pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:26pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:25pm: woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:22pm: What about Gillard witnessing a signature on a power of attorney when it was signe din WA but Gillard was in Vic, she didn't witness it being signed?? whats your defence of that, its been proven by those who signed it that Gillard was not present??? she was 3000Km away??? Is that the actions of a partner in a law firm, or again is she just young and naive?? Oh sigh once again lynchy, if there is accusation of a crime then let the police handle it.  You can do all the theories you want but the fact remains that Gillard has provided public statements, without even a need to do so, and if these statements were inaccurate and there is evidence to suggest her involvement in the scandal then the police should press charges.  It's as simple as that. A person is charged with criminal activity based on evidence. Not based on "What about this though! What about that though?"  To which the PM lied to the public in stark contrast to actual documentation and dates. To which the opposition has a duty to know if the PM lied to the public. Round and round in circles we go I see. The opposition has a duty to know if the PM and the government are not being accurate or truthful on policy or national interest.

It is always in the national interest to know if your PM is lying to the public.

Aussie wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:28pm:

Goodo........... Let's see all this documentation.....right here, and now. Quote: Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see. ;)

Go for it

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:29pm:

It is always in the national interest to know if your PM is lying to the public.

yep lying on policy matters. Agreed.  And in the capacity of the PM office.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:28pm: Goodo........... Let's see all this documentation.....right here, and now. Quote: Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see. ;) Go for it

I believe he was asking you.  It seems you don't really understand things very easily :(

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:30pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:29pm: It is always in the national interest to know if your PM is lying to the public. yep lying on policy matters. Agreed.

No, just a PM lying to the public is enough for it to be in the national interest.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:30pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:30pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:29pm: It is always in the national interest to know if your PM is lying to the public. yep lying on policy matters. Agreed. No, just a PM lying to the public is enough for it to be in the national interest.

on policy matters, yes. In the capacity as PM on dealings as PM, yes.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:30pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:29pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:28pm: Goodo........... Let's see all this documentation.....right here, and now. Quote: Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see. ;) Go for it I believe he was asking you.  It seems you don't really understand things very easily :(

I believe there is plenty and I mean plenty of information on this forum. If he wants to push out his chest, then he can do the work.

Quote:

Go for it

Over to you numbnuts.  Was it you who proclaimed this documentation was available for us all to see?


Quote:

It is always in the national interest to know if your PM is lying to the public.

Indeed, especially when the outcome is that we go to War and kill a few, wot?

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:31pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:30pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:29pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:28pm: Goodo........... Let's see all this documentation.....right here, and now. Quote: Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see. ;) Go for it I believe he was asking you.  It seems you don't really understand things very easily :( I believe there is plenty and I mean plenty of information on this forum. If he wants to push out his chest, then he can do the work.

I believe he was asking for the actual documents you are alluding too. Not some news pieces by Michael.  And when I say news, I mean "news".

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:31pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:30pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:30pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:29pm: It is always in the national interest to know if your PM is lying to the public. yep lying on policy matters. Agreed. No, just a PM lying to the public is enough for it to be in the national interest. on policy matters, yes. In the capacity as PM on dealings as PM, yes.

Not at all. Just like the misandrists in labor calling Abbott a misogynist. Didnt see you calling for the BS you are right now. You are way off the mark in the first place.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:32pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:30pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:29pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:28pm: Goodo........... Let's see all this documentation.....right here, and now. Quote: Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see. ;) Go for it I believe he was asking you.  It seems you don't really understand things very easily :( I believe there is plenty and I mean plenty of information on this forum. If he wants to push out his chest, then he can do the work. I believe he was asking for the actual documents you are alluding too. Not some news pieces by Michael.  And when I say news, I mean "news".

The documentation is all there. Might I suggest chest pusher goes and does some homework.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:33pm:

Not at all. Just like the misandrists in labor calling Abbott a misogynist.

Do politicians play double standards? Of course. But I'm arguing what I believe in, which is that the legal system is not some little game that Bishop can play with. You're arguing based on "it's okay because the other party is being hypocritical."   

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:34pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:30pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:29pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:28pm: Goodo........... Let's see all this documentation.....right here, and now. Quote: Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see. ;) Go for it I believe he was asking you.  It seems you don't really understand things very easily :( I believe there is plenty and I mean plenty of information on this forum. If he wants to push out his chest, then he can do the work. I believe he was asking for the actual documents you are alluding too. Not some news pieces by Michael.  And when I say news, I mean "news". The documentation is all there. Might I suggest chest pusher goes and does some homework.

I've read your posts. Can't see that actual documentations. I can see nice titles like 'Prima Facie' but not the actual documentation.  Mind just adding it to this thread to prove your point, perhaps?

Aussie wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:32pm:

Quote: Go for it Over to you numbnuts.  Was it you who proclaimed this documentation was available for us all to see? [quote]It is always in the national interest to know if your PM is lying to the public.

Indeed, especially when the outcome is that we go to War and kill a few, wot?[/quote]
Yes and indeed people have been asking for the truth on that matter since day one. I have never seen anyone suggest the police should look into it and everyone else should just be quiet.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:36pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:34pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:32pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:31pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:30pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:29pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:28pm: Goodo........... Let's see all this documentation.....right here, and now. Quote: Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see. ;) Go for it I believe he was asking you.  It seems you don't really understand things very easily :( I believe there is plenty and I mean plenty of information on this forum. If he wants to push out his chest, then he can do the work. I believe he was asking for the actual documents you are alluding too. Not some news pieces by Michael.  And when I say news, I mean "news". The documentation is all there. Might I suggest chest pusher goes and does some homework. I've read your posts. Can't see that actual documentations. I can see nice titles like 'Prima Facie' but not the actual documentation.  Mind just adding it to this thread to prove your point, perhaps?

Try following links. Thats always a good way of finding information.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:36pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:32pm: Quote: Go for it Over to you numbnuts.  Was it you who proclaimed this documentation was available for us all to see? [quote]It is always in the national interest to know if your PM is lying to the public. Indeed, especially when the outcome is that we go to War and kill a few, wot?

Yes and indeed people have been asking for the truth on that matter since day one. I have never seen anyone suggest the police should look into it and everyone else should just be quiet.[/quote]

Exactly - because it is national interest to make sure the PM doesnt lie when taking the country to war.   I'm glad you see the difference :)

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:33pm: Not at all. Just like the misandrists in labor calling Abbott a misogynist. Do politicians play double standards? Of course. But I'm arguing what I believe in, which is that the legal system is not some little game that Bishop can play with. You're arguing based on "it's okay because the other party is being hypocritical."

This isnt about what you believe in. This is about what the opposition have a duty to do and what they can actually do in reality.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:37pm:

Try following links. Thats always a good way of finding information.

I don't understand why you don't wish to prove your point? You have a chance here to show you are correct to Aussie and myself.  Why don't you want to do it?

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:39pm:

This isnt about what you believe in. This is about what the opposition have a duty to do and what they can actually do in reality.

The opposition have a duty to hold the government to account on nationaal and policy matters.  That is what they actually should do in reality.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:39pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:37pm: Try following links. Thats always a good way of finding information. I don't understand why you don't wish to prove your point? You have a chance here to show you are correct to Aussie and myself.  Why don't you want to do it?

I dont have to prove my point over and over and over. The information has been provided ad infinitum

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:38pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:36pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:32pm: Quote: Go for it Over to you numbnuts.  Was it you who proclaimed this documentation was available for us all to see? [quote]It is always in the national interest to know if your PM is lying to the public. Indeed, especially when the outcome is that we go to War and kill a few, wot? Yes and indeed people have been asking for the truth on that matter since day one. I have never seen anyone suggest the police should look into it and everyone else should just be quiet.

Exactly - because it is national interest to make sure the PM doesnt lie when taking the country to war.   I'm glad you see the difference :)[/quote]
Only to you. In reality, to other people, the PM lying to them about anything is in their interest to know. To get the truth.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 8:44pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:38pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:36pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 8:32pm: Quote: Go for it Over to you numbnuts.  Was it you who proclaimed this documentation was available for us all to see? [quote]It is always in the national interest to know if your PM is lying to the public. Indeed, especially when the outcome is that we go to War and kill a few, wot? Yes and indeed people have been asking for the truth on that matter since day one. I have never seen anyone suggest the police should look into it and everyone else should just be quiet. Exactly - because it is national interest to make sure the PM doesnt lie when taking the country to war.   I'm glad you see the difference :)

Only to you. In reality, to other people, the PM lying to them about anything is in their interest to know. To get the truth.[/quote]
well if there is evidence of lying on a personal matter by Gillard then that evidence can be presented to the police, given this is a criminal matter, and then if the police see fit they can press charges and the prosecuters can ask all the questions of Gillard they need. 

Still think if you have all this documentation you should provide it.  Seems silly you don't want to provide documentation that shows you are correct :(

Not sure why you bother Alevine ... tweedle dee knows he's got nothing or he would have produced it a long time ago .... just more nutjobs with too much time on their hands ....

its not what people here ar eclaiming, its in parliament its now in all newspapers.

If your not up to speed on what she did, its purely becaus eyou don't want to believe that it happened.

She's as guilty as sin, and ugly as it too.

Quote:

I dont have to prove my point over and over and over. The information has been provided ad infinitum

You have never proved it.  Now....if you please...............those documents to which you refer.

woof woof wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:05pm:

its not what people here ar eclaiming, its in parliament its now in all newspapers. If your not up to speed on what she did, its purely becaus eyou don't want to believe that it happened. She's as guilty as sin, and ugly as it too.

talk does not equate to

E.....V.....I.....D.....E.....N.....C.....E

Aussie wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:07pm:

Quote: I dont have to prove my point over and over and over. The information has been provided ad infinitum You have never proved it.  Now....if you please...............those documents to which you refer.

Go look. I provide the information when I feel like it, not when you feel like taking notice.

Ill give you a hint though. It is not my evidence, but you will find it amongst the many links I have provided within the threads I provided them in.

woof woof wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:05pm:

its not what people here ar eclaiming, its in parliament its now in all newspapers. If your not up to speed on what she did, its purely becaus eyou don't want to believe that it happened. She's as guilty as sin, and ugly as it too.

Last I checked newspaper articles alleging wrongdoing are not evidence.  I strongly encourage Bishop to hand over her evidence to the police. And to stop wasting important time in parliament, time which we as the public pay for, to speculate, and to raise up a lynch mob of nutters who simply denigrate our legal system.

Quote:

Go look. I provide the information when I feel like it, not when you feel like taking notice.

Thought so.  You have nothing, just like Bishop has nothing.

Goodo!!

;)

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:07pm: Quote: I dont have to prove my point over and over and over. The information has been provided ad infinitum You have never proved it.  Now....if you please...............those documents to which you refer. Go look. I provide the information when I feel like it, not when you feel like taking notice. Ill give you a hint though. It is not my evidence, but you will find it amongst the many links I have provided within the threads I provided them in.

Why won't you provide it? If you have it, surely it is very simple to just post it in this thread and prove all of us wrong?

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:08pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:07pm: Quote: I dont have to prove my point over and over and over. The information has been provided ad infinitum You have never proved it.  Now....if you please...............those documents to which you refer. Go look. I provide the information when I feel like it, not when you feel like taking notice.

what? when no ones watching, in invisible ink? what a pathetic excuse .... sometimes I'm sure you can't be any older than 15. .....

if you had any evidence you would have rushed to show it because your the sad type who would just love to say 'I told you so"... so lets stop this charade that you have any real evidence

Aussie wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:10pm:

Quote: Go look. I provide the information when I feel like it, not when you feel like taking notice. Thought so.  You have nothing, just like Bishop has nothing. Goodo!! ;)

Thats fine with me. You think I need to beat every chest pusher that comes along a little late in the proceedings. This converstion didnt just start when you decided to take notice.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:10pm: Quote: Go look. I provide the information when I feel like it, not when you feel like taking notice. Thought so.  You have nothing, just like Bishop has nothing. Goodo!! ;) Thats fine with me. You think I need to beat every chest pusher that comes along a little late in the proceedings. This converstion didnt just start when you decided to take notice.

But surely now that notice has been taken you can help bring someone up to speed?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:13pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:12pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:10pm: Quote: Go look. I provide the information when I feel like it, not when you feel like taking notice. Thought so.  You have nothing, just like Bishop has nothing. Goodo!! ;) Thats fine with me. You think I need to beat every chest pusher that comes along a little late in the proceedings. This converstion didnt just start when you decided to take notice. But surely now that notice has been taken you can help bring someone up to speed?

Sure. Use the search facility. It is easier than google.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:14pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:13pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:12pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:10pm: Quote: Go look. I provide the information when I feel like it, not when you feel like taking notice. Thought so.  You have nothing, just like Bishop has nothing. Goodo!! ;) Thats fine with me. You think I need to beat every chest pusher that comes along a little late in the proceedings. This converstion didnt just start when you decided to take notice. But surely now that notice has been taken you can help bring someone up to speed? Sure. Use the search facility. It is easier than google.

why can't you just provide it to us if you have it?

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:12pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:10pm: Quote: Go look. I provide the information when I feel like it, not when you feel like taking notice. Thought so.  You have nothing, just like Bishop has nothing. Goodo!! ;) Thats fine with me. You think I need to beat every chest pusher that comes along a little late in the proceedings. This converstion didnt just start when you decided to take notice.

nope, it started months ago .. and when i asked you for evidence then all you did was provide a link to a pickering article ..... I've been asking for evidence since but you've still not provided me with any real evidence ....ohhhh, the lawyers must be worried ....

John Smith wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:02pm:

Not sure why you bother Alevine ... tweedle dee knows he's got nothing or he would have produced it a long time ago .... just more nutjobs with too much time on their hands ....

tweedle dee is good quality when one needs a good laugh.

Quote:

Thats fine with me. You think I need to beat every chest pusher that comes along a little late in the proceedings. This converstion didnt just start when you decided to take notice.

Indeed.  It started with the fourth post on page one of this Thread..........your post:


Quote:

Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see.

So......let us all see this documentation which you claim is available for all to see.  Can't be hard.............if you have them, wot?

;)

I think progressives did a Maqqa.  He's gone into hiding.

http://talesofstan.com/375264679_9e5625aac0.jpg

You all watch Q time, don't you ask yourself hhhmmm why did Gillard sign a POA when she didn't witness the sigs?? or why did she setup a slush fund her words, and allow cheques to be drawn on that slush fund be allowed to be used to purchase a property when she was doing the conveyencing???

She's in deep poo and she knows it which is why she carries on in QT as she does.

progs' problem is that all his information comes from Pickering .... its a bit like asking Bin Laden for the latest news on the US ..... you might find the answer slightly skewed ....

woof woof wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:19pm:

You all watch Q time, don't you ask yourself hhhmmm why did Gillard sign a POA when she didn't witness the sigs?? or why did she setup a slush fund her words, and allow cheques to be drawn on that slush fund be allowed to be used to purchase a property when she was doing the conveyencing??? She's in deep poo and she knows it which is why she carries on in QT as she does.

I'm too busy asking myself why Bishop is so intent on wasting question time when there is so many other issues that Australia faces.  If she has evidence, I wonder to myself, why doesn't she take it to the police?  I also wonder to myself why she feels it necessary to waste time that we as the public pay for on non-policy related matters?  I think she takes the public for a fool and is better suited to a profession such as a judge or executioner. 

woof woof wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:19pm:

You all watch Q time, don't you ask yourself hhhmmm why did Gillard sign a POA when she didn't witness the sigs?? or why did she setup a slush fund her words, and allow cheques to be drawn on that slush fund be allowed to be used to purchase a property when she was doing the conveyencing??? She's in deep poo and she knows it which is why she carries on in QT as she does.

you might also ask yourself why, when this investigated several times, was she on each and every occassion found to be in the clear?  ...

Aussie wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:16pm:

Quote: Thats fine with me. You think I need to beat every chest pusher that comes along a little late in the proceedings. This converstion didnt just start when you decided to take notice. Indeed.  It started with the fourth post on page one of this Thread..........your post: [quote]Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see.

So......let us all see this documentation which you claim is available for all to see.  Can't be hard.............if you have them, wot?

;)[/quote]
Go for it. The search engine is all yours. It is there for you to see, so go find it.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:25pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:16pm: Quote: Thats fine with me. You think I need to beat every chest pusher that comes along a little late in the proceedings. This converstion didnt just start when you decided to take notice. Indeed.  It started with the fourth post on page one of this Thread..........your post: [quote]Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see. So......let us all see this documentation which you claim is available for all to see.  Can't be hard.............if you have them, wot? ;)

Go for it. The search engine is all yours. It is there for you to see, so go find it.[/quote]

sheesh one would think if one has the documentation one would simply provide it.

Yes, I watch QT...........when I can. 


Quote:

You all watch Q time, don't you ask yourself hhhmmm why did Gillard sign a POA when she didn't witness the sigs??

Produce your evidence Sir, not your waffe which is almost unintelligible.


Quote:

or why did she setup a slush fund her words, and allow cheques to be drawn on that slush fund

Produce your evidence that she allowed cheques to be drawn on the fund.


Quote:

be allowed to be used to purchase a property when she was doing the conveyencing???

Produce your evidence that she allowed it.

Enough of your wild claims.  Put up your proof.

;)


Quote:

Go for it. The search engine is all yours. It is there for you to see, so go find it.

It does not exist, numbnuts, and that is why you are doing a Tony.

;)

woof woof wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:19pm:

You all watch Q time, don't you ask yourself hhhmmm why did Gillard sign a POA when she didn't witness the sigs?? or why did she setup a slush fund her words, and allow cheques to be drawn on that slush fund be allowed to be used to purchase a property when she was doing the conveyencing??? She's in deep poo and she knows it which is why she carries on in QT as she does.

Matty has a crush on phony tony that's why he hates the PM. I love watching these delusional loonies, just a laugh, for near on three years now they've been saying the gov will come down, but instead the gov have now come back and look like wiping the floor with the women basher. :D :D :D ;D

Quote:

Matty has a crush......

Please, don't tell me I have been engaging with that bugger wit!!!!!!!

:-[

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:26pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:25pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:16pm: Quote: Thats fine with me. You think I need to beat every chest pusher that comes along a little late in the proceedings. This converstion didnt just start when you decided to take notice. Indeed.  It started with the fourth post on page one of this Thread..........your post: [quote]Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see. So......let us all see this documentation which you claim is available for all to see.  Can't be hard.............if you have them, wot? ;) Go for it. The search engine is all yours. It is there for you to see, so go find it.

sheesh one would think if one has the documentation one would simply provide it.
[/quote]
One would think instead of sniveling to protect labor, that you might take notice of what has been linked to. As I have said, I am not going to link to information that has been provided over and over.

The only time I will provide links on this subject is when I require myself to do so, not because johny come lately desires it.

skippy. wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:29pm:

woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:19pm: You all watch Q time, don't you ask yourself hhhmmm why did Gillard sign a POA when she didn't witness the sigs?? or why did she setup a slush fund her words, and allow cheques to be drawn on that slush fund be allowed to be used to purchase a property when she was doing the conveyencing??? She's in deep poo and she knows it which is why she carries on in QT as she does. Matty has a crush on phony tony that's why he hates the PM. I love watching these delusional loonies, just a laugh, for near on three years now they've been saying the gov will come down, but instead the gov have now come back and look like wiping the floor with the women basher. :D :D :D ;D

Abbott knew his best chance was to force an early election, that sooner or later the truth would come out and he would be finished, thats why he tried to have thommo condemned, slipper, as well as all the other bullshit he's been trying instead of doing his job and trying to provide alternate policies .. he's finished .. he knows it, the libs know it, the media know it ... just a few rusted on morons on here that like living in denial.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:33pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:25pm: Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:16pm: Quote: Thats fine with me. You think I need to beat every chest pusher that comes along a little late in the proceedings. This converstion didnt just start when you decided to take notice. Indeed.  It started with the fourth post on page one of this Thread..........your post: [quote]Is that what was on the documentation that gillard signed and is available for all to see. So......let us all see this documentation which you claim is available for all to see.  Can't be hard.............if you have them, wot? ;) Go for it. The search engine is all yours. It is there for you to see, so go find it. sheesh one would think if one has the documentation one would simply provide it.

One would think instead of sniveling to protect labor, that you might take notice of what has been linked to. As I have said, I am not going to link to information that has been provided over and over.

The only time I will provide links on this subject is when I require myself to do so, not because johny come lately desires it.[/quote]

I'm not protecting labor.  I'm just asking for you to help prove your case to us with the documentation you claim exists and is out there for all to see. You said you have it. We've asked you to provide it.  It's in your interest to provide it. And yet you decide you won't? Doesn't sound like something a credible person would do...

woof woof wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:26am:

Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con??

If you have a d!ck and you have been a Rhodes scholar, noticing this sort of thing is yet another utterly negative thing that you always do and you should be, like,  ashamed.

if you are a Labor lawyer with female sexual characteristics, you should be non-judgemental and let your BF just be himself, ok? You are as young and naive as you feel, right?

Quote:

The only time I will provide links on this subject is when I require myself to do so, not because johny come lately desires it.

Yep..............an arrogant, lying numbnut.  If you had the links, you'd have no problem posting them.  The links do not exist and neither ought liars like you on any Forum where there ought be some requirement for basic honesty.

Soren wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:39pm:

woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? If you have a d!ck and you have been a Rhodes scholar, noticing this sort of thing is yet another utterly negative thing that you always do and you should be, like,  ashamed. if you are a Labor lawyer with female sexual characteristics, you should be non-judgemental and let your BF just be himself, ok? You are as young and naive as you feel, right?

I don't think other Rhode Scholars are very thrilled with the fact that Tony somehow managed to become one.  He is a bit of dimwit.

I think progs has gone to look for that evidence .... he might be a while fellas, probably shouldn't wait up for him ....

John Smith wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:43pm:

I think progs has gone to look for that evidence .... he might be a while fellas, probably shouldn't wait up for him ....

he is busy helping maqqa redecorate his new hole in the wall.

Aussie wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:40pm:

Quote: The only time I will provide links on this subject is when I require myself to do so, not because johny come lately desires it. Yep..............an arrogant, lying numbnut.  If you had the links, you'd have no problem posting them.  The links do not exist and neither ought liars like you on any Forum where there ought be some requirement for basic honesty.

oh dam it, you caught me out. lol

Ill give you a hint. Blewitt never got a home loan via mortgage. Wilson under a dodgy power of attorney (dodgy because the poor sod at the end of it says its dodgy) didnt get a home loan via Blewitts mortgage either.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 9:55pm:

Aussie wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:40pm: Quote: The only time I will provide links on this subject is when I require myself to do so, not because johny come lately desires it. Yep..............an arrogant, lying numbnut.  If you had the links, you'd have no problem posting them.  The links do not exist and neither ought liars like you on any Forum where there ought be some requirement for basic honesty. oh dam it, you caught me out. lol Ill give you a hint. Blewitt never got a home loan via mortgage. Wilson under a dodgy power of attorney (dodgy because the poor sod at the end of it says its dodgy) didnt get a home loan via Blewitts mortgage either.

you seem to be mistaking heresay as EVIDENCE .... you have ZERO evidence that Gillard did anything wrong ...

Quote:

Ill give you a hint. Blewitt never got a home loan via mortgage. Wilson under a dodgy power of attorney (dodgy because the poor sod at the end of it says its dodgy) didnt get a home loan via Blewitts mortgage either.

Let's see the documents you said we can all see.

Or..............were you lying, like I said you were.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 7:32pm:

gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime?

seriously? assault... sexism.... sexual assault... etc etc...

all from the party with some of its own former MPs still in jail on rape, drugs and child sex charges.

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 7:07am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime? seriously? assault... sexism.... sexual assault... etc etc... all from the party with some of its own former MPs still in jail on rape, drugs and child sex charges.

The labor party never accuses him of assault or sexual assault.  That was individual people who did that.

As for sexism, not a crimInal matter.

Next, goose?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 7:39am:

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime? seriously? assault... sexism.... sexual assault... etc etc... all from the party with some of its own former MPs still in jail on rape, drugs and child sex charges. The labor party never accuses him of assault or sexual assault.  That was individual people who did that. As for sexism, not a crimInal matter. Next, goose?

do you want to run with that or do I start laughing derisively now?

the liberal party has never accused anyone in the labor party of anything. it has always been individuals...

seriously tho, thats the kind of reponse Id expect from booby, not you.

Lets run a simple hypothetical.

Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even.

Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal??

If as in this case he was earning around $200K I would be suspicious if he didn't buy a house or be doing something with his income.

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 7:52am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:39am: gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime? seriously? assault... sexism.... sexual assault... etc etc... all from the party with some of its own former MPs still in jail on rape, drugs and child sex charges. The labor party never accuses him of assault or sexual assault.  That was individual people who did that. As for sexism, not a crimInal matter. Next, goose? do you want to run with that or do I start laughing derisively now? the liberal party has never accused anyone in the labor party of anything. it has always been individuals... seriously tho, thats the kind of reponse Id expect from booby, not you.

So the labor party 30 odd years ago accused abbott of sexual assault?  And David Marr wrote about a woman who alleged Abbott nearly assaulted her I take it that was labor too? 

gold_medal wrote on Nov 2^nd, 2012 at 6:02pm:

Dnarever wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:43am: woof woof wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 9:26am: Lets run a simple hypothetical. Your partner works in a job with decent income. All of  asudden your partner starts buying expensive clothes, cars, gambling, a house even. Would you suspect something was amiss?? like taking monies from work?? or would you just think things are normal?? See Gillard whose BF Wilson who set up in Gillards own words a slush fund, starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. Would she not think gee somethings not right here?? Young and naive?? or in on the con?? starts buying lots of expensive stuff like a house. A lot of people buy a house - the police must be very busy. My wife once worked with a man who embezzled $28M from Flinders Uni. He earned $60K a pear and hard no family money. I question how his wife (or anyone else for that matter) didnt know something was awry when he bought a $3M house (in adelaide no less), half of the Adelaide 36ers and more... I refuse to believe anyone can be THAT naive. He is still in jail

My dad was a lawyer and was caught embezzling in WA back in the 70s, He made them pay him out when they sacked him. The law can be on the side of the thief sometimes.

SOB

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 7:58am:

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:52am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:39am: gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical:  if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations?  Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  ;D. And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here?  I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct.  My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple:  criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members.  If there is evidence hand it to the police.  Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt.  And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament.  And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime? seriously? assault... sexism.... sexual assault... etc etc... all from the party with some of its own former MPs still in jail on rape, drugs and child sex charges. The labor party never accuses him of assault or sexual assault.  That was individual people who did that. As for sexism, not a crimInal matter. Next, goose? do you want to run with that or do I start laughing derisively now? the liberal party has never accused anyone in the labor party of anything. it has always been individuals... seriously tho, thats the kind of reponse Id expect from booby, not you. So the labor party 30 odd years ago accused abbott of sexual assault?  And David Marr wrote about a woman who alleged Abbott nearly assaulted her I take it that was labor too?

You're usually more intelligent than this drivel. The point is simple: dont accuse the libs of making allegations as if Labor dont do the same and worse.

The documentation your requesting we show you is/has being tabled in parliament this week.

The power of atttorney that Gillard signed as a witness but but is proven she was in another state when she said she signed it.

The 67K cheque drawn on the slush fund Gillard set up

The admission that Gillard attended the auction with wilson to buy a house in blewitts name which she did the conveyencing for??? that in itself is cas efor concern, why would you do the conveyencing on a property your BF bought but bought it in another name using the POA that Gillard signed but wa sin another state when she supposedly witnessed the signature??? very suss.

The fact that no bank loan was obtained but a loan from slater and gordan.

It all adds up to one big fraud?? but hey got to defend labor and gillard at all costs hey???

Blewitt didn't even dam knpow a house had been bought in his name.

woof woof wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 3:19pm:

The documentation your requesting we show you is/has being tabled in parliament this week. The power of atttorney that Gillard signed as a witness but but is proven she was in another state when she said she signed it. The 67K cheque drawn on the slush fund Gillard set up The admission that Gillard attended the auction with wilson to buy a house in blewitts name which she did the conveyencing for??? that in itself is cas efor concern, why would you do the conveyencing on a property your BF bought but bought it in another name using the POA that Gillard signed but wa sin another state when she supposedly witnessed the signature??? very suss. The fact that no bank loan was obtained but a loan from slater and gordan. It all adds up to one big fraud?? but hey got to defend labor and gillard at all costs hey???

Why bother. They know blewitt didnt get a mortgage on his house like skippy said ordinary people do.

Just keep pumping out the information, the links to documentation. If they want to finally take notice, then let them rummage through the information already provided.

The thing is, is that if Bishop was telling lies wouldn't she be misleading parliament??

Now the bloke that got kicked out the other day for saying Gillard is corrupt he's still there so he hasn't misled parliament??

Skippy how did Blewitt take out a mortgage when Wilson bought a house in Blewitts name using a power of attorney that was illegally established and Blewitt didn't even know the house had been bought???

why have all the key players in this game been rewarded by Gillard with high paying jobs???

woof woof wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 3:45pm:

The thing is, is that if Bishop was telling lies wouldn't she be misleading parliament?? Now the bloke that got kicked out the other day for saying Gillard is corrupt he's still there so he hasn't misled parliament?? Skippy how did Blewitt take out a mortgage when Wilson bought a house in Blewitts name using a power of attorney that was illegally established and Blewitt didn't even know the house had been bought??? why have all the key players in this game been rewarded by Gillard with high paying jobs???

I am not sure it is possible to mislead parliament within a question and with documentation the other side will not allow you to table and the PM not giving a direct answer

It is more like the public will make up their own minds with gillard not answering rather than it being gillard arguing she has been misrepresented or that liberals lied to parliament

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 3:52pm:

woof woof wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 3:45pm: The thing is, is that if Bishop was telling lies wouldn't she be misleading parliament?? Now the bloke that got kicked out the other day for saying Gillard is corrupt he's still there so he hasn't misled parliament?? Skippy how did Blewitt take out a mortgage when Wilson bought a house in Blewitts name using a power of attorney that was illegally established and Blewitt didn't even know the house had been bought??? why have all the key players in this game been rewarded by Gillard with high paying jobs??? I am not sure it is possible to mislead parliament within a question and with documentation the other side will not allow you to table and the PM not giving a direct answer It is more like the public will make up their own minds with gillard not answering rather than it being gillard arguing she has been misrepresented or that liberals lied to parliament

Hi!! Did you decide to crawl back in did you? Got that documentation yet?