Quote:

The Liberal Party and their media allies are spinning out of control, alleging a Government cover-up over Peter Slipper. In a forensic analysis of the case, Vince O’Grady shows that, if anything, the reverse is true. http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/SheehanSlipper.png Paul Sheehan from Fairfax — making absurd exaggerations about Peter Slipper. ON OCTOBER 18,  Paul Sheehan wrote an article in the Sydney Morning Herald entitled ‘Roxon’s calls on Slipper’s crudities show questionable judgement’. He starts off his article with a test: ‘How long does it take to deduce whether the following text messages are sexual and in poor taste.’ He then goes onto describe messages 11241, 11295, 10078 and 10080 in former Slipper staffer James Ashby’s affidavit. He goes on to say: ‘It takes about eight seconds to read these messages. Confronted with DOZENS of similar messages it would have taken less than a minute to realise that the former speaker of the house, Peter Slipper, sent numerous lurid, unsolicited sexual messages to a STAFF member. Which means the Attorney-General, Nicola Roxon, has a problem.’ [Emphasis mine.] That’s Sheehan’s story; the facts, however, tell a far different tale. Here are some of these facts, backed up by actual proof (as found in the publicly accessible court documents): 1. James Ashby made complaints about Peter Slipper to the Federal court of Australia on 20 April 2012. 2. He alleged sexual discrimination by Peter Slipper (The “Second Respondent”). The document actually says: Sexual Harassment 4. Between January 2012 and March 2012, the Second Respondent made unwelcome sexual advances, unwelcome sexual comments and unwelcome suggestions of a sexual nature to the Applicant. 3. James Ashby was offered a job by Peter Slipper as media adviser. .......... 11. On or about 15 October 2011, the Second Respondent enquired as to whether the Applicant would be interested in a role as a media adviser. A short time later, the Second Respondent officially offered the Applicant the role. The Applicant declined the offer. The Second Respondent was persistent with his offer. 12. On or about 27 October 2011, the Second Respondent again offered the Applicant the role. The Applicant again declined the offer. 4. Ashby accepts a job as an Adviser to Slipper. 13. By letter dated 5 December 2011 the Second Respondent later offered the Applicant employment as an Adviser on his personal staff as an ongoing employee, to be employed as a Personal Employee under Part III of the Members of Parliament (Staff) Act 1984. 14. The Applicant accepted the position and commenced employment on or about 22 December 2011. The role involved work both in the Electorate Office in Queensland and in Canberra. http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/AshbySlipper-300x207.png Looking at the texts in totum, James Ashby seemed to have a positive and amicable working relationship with Peter Slipper. The four messages referred to by Sheehan were private messages between two adults. They were sent by Slipper to Ashby (remember, this is Ashby's phone records we are looking at here) as follows: 11241 on 28/10/2011. Did you lose your maidenhood again? [read by Ashby] 11244 and 11245 (repeated)  on 28/10/2011. Your virtual hymen [read by Ashby] 10078 on 10/10/2012. Fully how we say that a person is a front bottoms when many guys like c**ts!;) [read by Ashby] 10080 on 10/10/2012. They look like a mussell removed from its shell. Look at a bottle of mussel meat! Salty C**ts in brine [read by Ashby] Lets refer back to the facts. Ashby was employed by Slipper by letter of offer on 5th December 2011. He commenced employment on 22 December 2011. When these messages were sent and received, they were the private correspondence between two individuals and have no relation to the sexual harassment charges specified in the complaint because they also fall outside of those dates. Ashby was not employed by Slipper when those messages were sent ― so there can have been no sexual harassment at that time. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ladcs-3onH4 Whilst the content of the text messages may be seen by some as offensive, the test for offense is whether or not the person was actually offended. In between messages 10078 and 10080 is message 10079; the sequence reads as follows: 10078 on 10/10/2012. Fully how we say that a person is a front bottoms when many guys like c**ts!;) [read by Ashby]. 10079 on 10/10/2012. Not I [sent by Ashby]. 10080 on 10/10/2012. They look like a mussell removed from its shell. Look at a bottle of mussel meat! Salty C**ts in brine [read by Ashby]. The texts then go onto show more strategising about how they can get Mal Brough. In fact, the original language was about Brough, neither Ashby or Slipper liked him (at least according to the texts). I will leave you to make up your mind as to whether Ashby was, in fact, offended by the vile language used in the texts by Slipper. But how does this all add up to Nicola Roxon having a problem? Well, the argument is that she knew about the vile and disgusting texts on June 9th when she was briefed. Paul Sheehan says Roxon: ‘…was briefed about the hundreds of dubious and distasteful text messages sent by Slipper to his Staffer James Ashby.’ The only relevant messages which are germane to the case are the messages during the dates between January and March 2012. I have counted the relevant messages given in evidence during this time and they start from message #12522 on 1 January and conclude at #14336 on 28 February 2012. They include 691 messages (364  messages in January and 327 in February). Slipper sent Ashby 361 messages out of the 691 messages sent between the pair. That means that Ashby sent 330 messages back. I have counted the number of messages Slipper sent to Ashby and made an evaluation of those that were potentially “dubious and distasteful”. There were 169 messages from Slipper to Ashby in January and 192 messages in February.

continue

Quote:

After looking through the messages February, none of them appeared to be particularly ‘dubious or distasteful’ #8213; they were all about his work. For January, I’ve and only found one message which appears to be distasteful. Message 12994 to 13014 are interesting. They are as follows: 12994 on 20/1/12. What’s happening? Haven’t heard from you [read by Ashby] 12995 on 20/1/12. I quit didn’t u hear? Joking. I’m all good. I’m trying to let u have a bit of a holiday. Just had another meeting with TAFE with Karen. Been organizing the forum and we’re heading out to drop off growth charts this afternoon. How r u going? [sent by Ashby] [Messages 12996, 12997 and 12998 are missing from the affidavit.] 12999 0n 20/1/12. Y r a ccccuuunnnnn….tttttt:) (read by Ashby) 13000 on 20/1/12. Hahahaha  (sent by Ashby) [Messages 13001 to 13012 missing from Affidavit.] 13013 on 20 Jan 2012. Ccccccccuuuuuunnnnnt  (read by Ashby) 13014 on 20 jan 2012. You love it but ????? (sent by Ashby) I leave the reader to make the judgement as to whether Ashby was offended by this exchange. Perhaps it would be better if we knew the content of the messages which are missing. One can only speculate. So, in the month of January, I have personally gone through I have only found the one message sequence which could be considered “dubious and distasteful” ― but distasteful to whom? It appears not to Ashby. There are simply not “hundreds of dubious and distasteful text messages sent by Slipper to his Staffer James Ashby”, As Paul Sheehan asserts. In fact, Sheehan has gilded the lily and made outrageous accusations which are not supported by the facts. Hundreds are really a couple. Offensive is relative: was Ashby really offended. Judging by the language used by him in other texts to Slipper and others, it seems he had a potty mouth as well. Sheehan then goes on to use the politically motivated hyperbole of Opposition lawyers Eric Abetz and George Brandis to describe the trouble the Attorney-General is meant to be in. Humbug, pure and simple. When she was briefed about the text messages on June 9, 2012, the lawyer in her may have taken over, but is this relevant to the case before the court. What Paul Sheehan should be concerned about is the reporting of facts. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZIvlicJPs0U Peter Slipper is guilty of having a potty text persona ― like many politicians … and indeed journalists. At least he had the political courage to own up to his private persona..... a contrast to the journalists and politicians mentioned in this piece. Methinks they do protest too much! That, however, is not all that is intriguing about the case. In the original complaint, the “First Respondent” is the Commonwealth of Australia. The complaint says the following: 5. In or around mid 2003, the First Respondent became aware that the Second Respondent had formed a relationship of a sexual nature with a younger male member of staff employed in the office of the Second Respondent. 6. The First Respondent obtained this knowledge via its employee, Mr Tony Nutt, a Senior Adviser to the then Prime Minister, John Howard. Mr Nutt was so informed by Megan Hobson, a former member of the Second Respondent’s staff who had viewed a video in which Mr Slipper was observed to: (a) enter the bedroom of a junior male staff member via the window; (b) lie on a bed with the junior male staff member in shorts and t-shirt and hug the junior male staff member in an intimate fashion; (c) urinate out of the window of the room. 7. Mr Nutt, having been informed of (a) and (b) above by Megan Hobson, directed Megan Hobson to “….forget all about it”. 8. The Commonwealth thereafter failed to take reasonable and effective steps to prevent the Second Respondent from utilising his office to foster sexual relationships with young male staff members. I have the following questions about this: 1. Given James Ashby met Peter Slipper for the first time in 2011, how did he know about alleged behaviour by the member for Fisher in 2003, 8 years previous? 2. If an actual video exists of this incident, then where is it? 3. If this incident really occurred, was there a cover up of Slipper’s behaviour by the Liberals? 4. Where did the information come from about this incident? http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/BrandisNuttAbetz.png What did George Brandis, Tony Nutt and Eric Abetz know about the alleged 2003 incident and did they and the Liberal Party cover it up until it was politically convenient? I suspect that the only part of Sheehan’s article I agree with is the following: ‘The political mischief in this case has never been in doubt.’ Much of that political mischief given in the article is in his quotes from George Brandis and Eric Abetz. Sheehan quotes George Brandis as saying: ‘These texts, on any view, contain dozens of instances of predatory sexual conduct. So the Attorney-General’s claim that this was merely a vexatious case was extraordinary. Any person who reads the texts would know instantly that Ashby had a case.’ Sheehan quotes Eric Abetz as saying: ‘The government was willing to spent three quarters of a million dollars of taxpayers’ money to cover this up. I’ve never seen the first law officer of the land behave in such a partisan way. She has a lot to answer for and a lot to explain.’ Let me summarise the facts, rather than the deceitful spin promulgated by Sheehan, Brandis, Abetz and others:   When the texts which are mentioned at the top of Sheehan’s article were sent, they were not sent to anyone who was employed by Slipper.   They were private.   They were not the subject of the original complaint because they did not fall into the dates specified in the complaint.   There are not dozens of instances of predatory sexual conduct.   There were not “hundreds of dubious or distasteful text messages sent by Slipper to his staffer James Ashby” ― there was merely a handful.   If Peter Slipper was involved in an alleged improper incident with a staffer in 2003, someone from the Prime Minister’s office (John Howard’s) covered it up, only to bring it to Ashby’s attention in 2012 for political reasons.   James Ashby’s legal action is being funded pro bono by Harmer’s Workplace Lawyers and a mystery donor from the Liberal Party has apparently given him $100,000 worth of legal work for $1. [ 8]  Why wasn’t this complaint handled under the normal procedures for workplace sexual harassment? If a normal (and not apparently politically motivated) procedure in these cases had been followed by Ashby, then there would have been a completely different outcome. This is demonstrated by a report called ‘Formal Complaints of Workplace Sexual Harassment Lodged with Australian Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commissions 1 July 2009 – 31 December 2009‘, which said in 132 cases studied: ‘The lowest amount of compensation received was $364 and the largest was $114,128, with an average amount of $13,596.31 per complainant and a median compensation figure of $7,000. Some gender differences were noted regarding the amount of compensation received, with only female complainants receiving payments greater than $50,000.’ So, if this had been handled under the normal procedures which exist for sexual harassment complaints, the complaint would have already been resolved, the government would not have had to pay $3/4 million in legal expenses. Of course, if Slippers alleged 2003 behaviour had not been apparently covered up by Liberal Party staffers, Eric Abetz would not have any cause for complaint. Of course, that’s unless it is a politically motivated concoction dreamt up to smear and further defame Slipper and assist Ashby’s claims. So, in conclusion, I reiterate my agreement with Paul Sheehan on the one part of the article I agree with: ‘The political mischief in this case has never been in doubt.’ Finally, what has happened politically. Peter Slipper has been outed as having used vile text language. He has resigned as Speaker. He is probably very pissed off with his former colleagues in the Liberal party. The Government still has a firm hold on power. The people of Australia are $750,000 worse off, perhaps because of a cover-up by the liberal party in 2003. http://www.independentaustralia.net/Wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/Pyne2.png Tony  Abbott is still Opposition Leader, not the Prime Minister. Nicola Roxon is still Attorney-General. Having done nothing wrong. And the bleaters are still bleating, but fewer and fewer people are listening.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/the-alleged-peter-slipper-cover-up/

funny how the righties are avoiding this.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 4:46pm:

funny how the righties are avoiding this.

independent labor australia is not independent enough to bother.

I am sure I will get around to going through the labor dependent drivel soon enough.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 4:48pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:46pm: funny how the righties are avoiding this. independent labor australia is not independent enough to bother. I am sure I will get around to going through the labor dependent drivel soon enough.

interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says.

yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints.. what a hoot I wouldnt even bother to read it..


leave it for the worshippers I am afraid..they need all the help they can get.

just goes to show how the left will go as low as they can to protect.. the people they believe in. first THOMO and now SLIPPER.. good choices...


i dont think

cods wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 4:57pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:46pm: funny how the righties are avoiding this. independent labor australia is not independent enough to bother. I am sure I will get around to going through the labor dependent drivel soon enough. interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says. yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints.. what a hoot I wouldnt even bother to read it.. leave it for the worshippers I am afraid..they need all the help they can get. just goes to show how the left will go as low as they can to protect.. the people they believe in. first THOMO and now SLIPPER.. good choices... i dont think

So you don't believe that Ashby first made the claims about the sexual harrasment to the Howard Government - who dismissed it? You claim it was all brewing for 9 LONG VERY VEYR LONG YEARS without anyone the wiser?  Are you really that dumb?

when yu quote from dubious sources and then refuse to accept your own party's criminal past than you lose to right to expect to be taken seriously. You can be partisan and retrain respect. You cant be idiotic, hypocritical and ignorant and expec to be taken seriously.

cods wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 4:57pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:46pm: funny how the righties are avoiding this. independent labor australia is not independent enough to bother. I am sure I will get around to going through the labor dependent drivel soon enough. interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says. yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints.. what a hoot I wouldnt even bother to read it.. leave it for the worshippers I am afraid..they need all the help they can get. just goes to show how the left will go as low as they can to protect.. the people they believe in. first THOMO and now SLIPPER.. good choices... i dont think

Well - Bolt has been found by the courts to be telling lies

Justice Bongiorno included $25,000 punitive damages in his award against Bolt and the newspaper for both the "misleading" and "disingenuous" comments he had made outside court and the newspaper's reporting of the jury's decision.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt#Defamation_case

Can you say the same of Independent Australia

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 6:09pm:

cods wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:46pm: funny how the righties are avoiding this. independent labor australia is not independent enough to bother. I am sure I will get around to going through the labor dependent drivel soon enough. interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says. yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints.. what a hoot I wouldnt even bother to read it.. leave it for the worshippers I am afraid..they need all the help they can get. just goes to show how the left will go as low as they can to protect.. the people they believe in. first THOMO and now SLIPPER.. good choices... i dont think Well - Bolt has been found by the courts to be telling lies Justice Bongiorno included $25,000 punitive damages in his award against Bolt and the newspaper for both the "misleading" and "disingenuous" comments he had made outside court and the newspaper's reporting of the jury's decision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt#Defamation_case Can you say the same of Independent Australia

Bolt does not have independent as his whole backbone

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 6:14pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 6:09pm: cods wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:46pm: funny how the righties are avoiding this. independent labor australia is not independent enough to bother. I am sure I will get around to going through the labor dependent drivel soon enough. interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says. yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints.. what a hoot I wouldnt even bother to read it.. leave it for the worshippers I am afraid..they need all the help they can get. just goes to show how the left will go as low as they can to protect.. the people they believe in. first THOMO and now SLIPPER.. good choices... i dont think Well - Bolt has been found by the courts to be telling lies Justice Bongiorno included $25,000 punitive damages in his award against Bolt and the newspaper for both the "misleading" and "disingenuous" comments he had made outside court and the newspaper's reporting of the jury's decision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt#Defamation_case Can you say the same of Independent Australia Bolt does not have independent as his whole backbone

Yet Cods says:
interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints

When Bolt and NewsLtd have been found by the Courts to have told lies - yet Independent Australia hasn't.

Why do you think Cods is so narrow-minded and bigoted?  Do you think he likes to believe people that tell lies because he also tells lies?  Or is he just not very bright and doesn't realise how stupid his posts are?

I think evidence suggests the latter is probably most likely

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 6:22pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 6:14pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 6:09pm: cods wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:46pm: funny how the righties are avoiding this. independent labor australia is not independent enough to bother. I am sure I will get around to going through the labor dependent drivel soon enough. interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says. yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints.. what a hoot I wouldnt even bother to read it.. leave it for the worshippers I am afraid..they need all the help they can get. just goes to show how the left will go as low as they can to protect.. the people they believe in. first THOMO and now SLIPPER.. good choices... i dont think Well - Bolt has been found by the courts to be telling lies Justice Bongiorno included $25,000 punitive damages in his award against Bolt and the newspaper for both the "misleading" and "disingenuous" comments he had made outside court and the newspaper's reporting of the jury's decision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt#Defamation_case Can you say the same of Independent Australia Bolt does not have independent as his whole backbone Yet Cods says: interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints When Bolt and NewsLtd have been found by the Courts to have told lies - yet Independent Australia hasn't. Why do you think Cods is so narrow-minded and bigoted?  Do you think he likes to believe people that tell lies because he also tells lies?  Or is he just not very bright and doesn't realise how stupid his posts are? I think evidence suggests the latter is probably most likely

Something that claims to be independent and is clearly not, is not much of a throw from someone you believe to be dishonest.

I am sure independent tell the labor choir the truth as per labor play book, but that does not make someone independent.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 6:26pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 6:22pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 6:14pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 6:09pm: cods wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:46pm: funny how the righties are avoiding this. independent labor australia is not independent enough to bother. I am sure I will get around to going through the labor dependent drivel soon enough. interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says. yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints.. what a hoot I wouldnt even bother to read it.. leave it for the worshippers I am afraid..they need all the help they can get. just goes to show how the left will go as low as they can to protect.. the people they believe in. first THOMO and now SLIPPER.. good choices... i dont think Well - Bolt has been found by the courts to be telling lies Justice Bongiorno included $25,000 punitive damages in his award against Bolt and the newspaper for both the "misleading" and "disingenuous" comments he had made outside court and the newspaper's reporting of the jury's decision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt#Defamation_case Can you say the same of Independent Australia Bolt does not have independent as his whole backbone Yet Cods says: interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints When Bolt and NewsLtd have been found by the Courts to have told lies - yet Independent Australia hasn't. Why do you think Cods is so narrow-minded and bigoted?  Do you think he likes to believe people that tell lies because he also tells lies?  Or is he just not very bright and doesn't realise how stupid his posts are? I think evidence suggests the latter is probably most likely Something that claims to be independent and is clearly not, is not much of a throw from someone you believe to be dishonest. I am sure independent tell the labor choir the truth as per labor play book, but that does not make someone independent.

Andrew Bolt and NewsLtd have been found by the Courts to be dishonest.

What has Independent Australia written that you think is dishonest?
On what do you base this opinion?

Can you answer?  Or will you just tell another silly lie and run away, as you have been caught doing so many times before?

http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1351925740
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350660319/157#157

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 6:41pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 6:26pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 6:22pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 6:14pm: rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 6:09pm: cods wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:46pm: funny how the righties are avoiding this. independent labor australia is not independent enough to bother. I am sure I will get around to going through the labor dependent drivel soon enough. interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says. yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints.. what a hoot I wouldnt even bother to read it.. leave it for the worshippers I am afraid..they need all the help they can get. just goes to show how the left will go as low as they can to protect.. the people they believe in. first THOMO and now SLIPPER.. good choices... i dont think Well - Bolt has been found by the courts to be telling lies Justice Bongiorno included $25,000 punitive damages in his award against Bolt and the newspaper for both the "misleading" and "disingenuous" comments he had made outside court and the newspaper's reporting of the jury's decision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt#Defamation_case Can you say the same of Independent Australia Bolt does not have independent as his whole backbone Yet Cods says: interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints When Bolt and NewsLtd have been found by the Courts to have told lies - yet Independent Australia hasn't. Why do you think Cods is so narrow-minded and bigoted?  Do you think he likes to believe people that tell lies because he also tells lies?  Or is he just not very bright and doesn't realise how stupid his posts are? I think evidence suggests the latter is probably most likely Something that claims to be independent and is clearly not, is not much of a throw from someone you believe to be dishonest. I am sure independent tell the labor choir the truth as per labor play book, but that does not make someone independent. Andrew Bolt and NewsLtd have been found by the Courts to be dishonest. What has Independent Australia written that you think is dishonest? On what do you base this opinion? Can you answer?  Or will you just tell another silly lie and run away, as you have been caught doing so many times before? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1351925740 http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?num=1350660319/157#157

You people dont read english to well around here. Re-read what I said and then try and allege that I said independent were dishonest.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 6:09pm:

cods wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:57pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:48pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:46pm: funny how the righties are avoiding this. independent labor australia is not independent enough to bother. I am sure I will get around to going through the labor dependent drivel soon enough. interesting how they dont believe a word Bolt says or for that matter what NewsLtd says. yet they seriously expect us to believe what this labor  rubbish prints.. what a hoot I wouldnt even bother to read it.. leave it for the worshippers I am afraid..they need all the help they can get. just goes to show how the left will go as low as they can to protect.. the people they believe in. first THOMO and now SLIPPER.. good choices... i dont think Well - Bolt has been found by the courts to be telling lies Justice Bongiorno included $25,000 punitive damages in his award against Bolt and the newspaper for both the "misleading" and "disingenuous" comments he had made outside court and the newspaper's reporting of the jury's decision. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrew_Bolt#Defamation_case Can you say the same of Independent Australia

the difference oh ye-of-little-intelligence is that millions read the News. Almost nobody reads the labor rag you quote.

IN short, no one even cares.

A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it.

The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it.

Would I be right thinking that?

John S wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 7:51pm:

A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that?

No, thats just a stab back at the lefties who complain about our links.

One thing that gets at me is deception. A word to deceive or to put it another way, a word that does deceive.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 7:59pm:

John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? No, thats just a stab back at the lefties who complain about our links. One thing that gets at me is deception. A word to deceive or to put it another way, a word that does deceive.

I put it another then lolly

Was it a good or bad thing when labor made Peter Slipper Speaker? and why do you think that way?

John S wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 8:09pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:59pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? No, thats just a stab back at the lefties who complain about our links. One thing that gets at me is deception. A word to deceive or to put it another way, a word that does deceive. I put it another then lolly Was it a good or bad thing when labor made Peter Slipper Speaker? and why do you think that way?

It was a bad thing because the current speaker seemed to be an honorable man.

All the rest go full circle to having an honorable man lose his position.

no order of relevance
It was a bad idea because

it goes against tradition.
slipper had known issues of the past
It was done to sure up a lie to an MP that gave them support through pockie reform
slipper in no way deserved such a position
it just looked so terrible for parliaments prestige and honor

Probably others, but someone can fill in.

Interesting to see that the texts were never part of the case, it was well before Ashby was working for Slipper that Ashby was clearly not offended and they were not really that bad at all.

Unlike with Bolt etc the story is a series of facts put in logical order.

Ashby had accepted the job with slipper 2 months after the supposidly offensive texts were sent and his replies do not sound like he was offended at all.

If you had chosen to believe the spin and admittedly I thought that the stories were indicating that the messages were sent while Ashby was employed by Slipper - this looks to be untrue and therefore never part of any legitimate employer sexual misconduct accusation at all.

Looks like dishonest spin won the day.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 8:17pm:

John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 8:09pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:59pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? No, thats just a stab back at the lefties who complain about our links. One thing that gets at me is deception. A word to deceive or to put it another way, a word that does deceive. I put it another then lolly Was it a good or bad thing when labor made Peter Slipper Speaker? and why do you think that way? It was a bad thing because the current speaker seemed to be an honorable man. All the rest go full circle to having an honorable man lose his position. no order of relevance It was a bad idea because it goes against tradition. slipper had known issues of the past It was done to sure up a lie to an MP that gave them support through pockie reform slipper in no way deserved such a position it just looked so terrible for parliaments prestige and honor Probably others, but someone can fill in.

Well I think it was a good thing that labor made Slipper Speaker.

Why, like you said Slipper had known issues of his past and the liberal party knew about them for 9 years and done nothing about them.

Yeah Abbott said he was trying to get rid of him from parliament. Why didn't Abbott get him dis-endorsed in 2010?

If he wasn't made Speaker all his known issues would still be buried in the archives of the liberal Party HQ, never to see the light of day.

Guess what it was the stupid liberal party that brought it to light because they though it would hurt the labor government.

Going on the dates those text were sent, Ashby didn't work for Slipper until after they were sent.

John S wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 7:51pm:

A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that?

You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel.

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 9:19pm:

John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel.

In other words he is correct .... don't pretend his question is about one newspaper ... you have never, not once, ever said anything good about anything labor or any pro labor affilate since I've been on ozpolitic  ... and please don't tell me it's because they haven't done any good because that will just prove my point ....

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 9:19pm:

John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel.

You know everything longy so who from this list are labor supporters

Quote:

IA has a wide range of contributors committed to creating a better Australia and a better world, including: Mark Aldridge Denise Allen Bill Angus Alan Austin Tony Backhouse Tim Badrick Paul Bains Greg Barns Rev’d Dr Ray Barraclough Neil Barrett Mark Batistich Miriam Bauman Virginia Becker  Deb Bennett George Bludger Wayne Brooks Madam Butterfly Kelly Butterworth Nick Carson Dan Cass Barrie Cassidy Nancy Cato CDH Wei Ling Chau Dr Ted Christie Dave Clarke Joseph Cotta Scot Bill Deller Professor Paddy Dewan Dr Mark Diesendorf David Donovan Matthew Donovan Andrew Douglas Keith Dunstan Jennifer Elliott Bob Ellis Doug Evans Joan Evatt Dr Peter Evans Barry Everingham Philip Feinstein Terry Fewtrell JJ Fiasson David Flint Ken Flower Ruth Forsythe Dr Ian Freckelton SC Lynton Freeman Bob Fritakis Dr Jone Gaillard Ross Garrad Gee William Gladys David Glynn Jones Jai Goulding Alex Gunther Jenny Haines Sandra Hajda Graham Hardy Ludwig Heinrich Adam Henry Rodger Hills Kelly Hockley Lewis Holden Rob Hutchinson Louis Irmo Graham Jackson Allan Jamieson Andrew Jennings Peter Johnstone Dr Benjamin Thomas Jones Chris Jones Associate Professor Evan Jones Sandi Keane Major General Michael Keating Ash Kelso Andrew Kos JD Lang Tess Lawrence Jed Lea-Henry Jenny LeComte Jason Leopold Rodney E. Lever Len Liddelow Angela Long Harold Lubansky Dr Hugh McDermott Peter McGee Roy McKeen David McKenna Simon McMan Dr Julie Milland Matthew Mitchell Dr Brian Moench Carey Moore James Moore Dr Tony Moore Jordan Nash Shaun Newman Matt Norman Vincent O’Grady Max Opray Frank O’Shea Emily Osmond John Passant Kim Peart Dr Mike Pepperday Henry Pill William Rivers Pitt Gervase Poulden Gregory ‘Binnah’ Pownall John Pyke Dick Racey Graham Readfearn T.K. Riches Dr Kay Rollison Victoria Rollison Herman Royce George Said Ynes Sanz Carl Scrase Philip Shaw Blunt Shovels John Skene Graham Smith Dr RFI Smith John Smith Betty Smout Mike Stuchbery Luke Sulzberger Dave Sweeney Don Tate Julia Thiemann Damon Thomas Lorel Thomas Peter Thomas Kane Thornton Andrew Tiedt Eugene Tomison John Turnbull Jacinda Tutty Iurgi Urrutia Dr George Venturini Robert Vose Syd Walker Wil Wallace John Ward Professor John Warhurst Noel Wauchope Brad Webb Brigadier Neil Weekes Reverend Canon Dr Andrew PB White Peter Wicks Professor George Williams Matt Williams Melinda Wilson Evan Whitton Dr Klaas Woldring Jeffrey Wood Bec Zajac …. and many others.

I know there is a couple from that list that leans to the left and there is a couple that leans to the right

http://www.independentaustralia.net/about/ia-contributors/

If you want to read their Mission Statement here it is

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 9:51pm:

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 9:19pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel. In other words he is correct .... don't pretend his question is about one newspaper ... you have never, not once, ever said anything good about anything labor or any pro labor affilate since I've been on ozpolitic  ... and please don't tell me it's because they haven't done any good because that will just prove my point ....

even today I said that Martin Ferguson was good at his job. BEFORE you posted this

Must suck being wrong like you are so often.

John S wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 9:59pm:

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 9:19pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel. You know everything longy so who from this list are labor supporters Quote: IA has a wide range of contributors committed to creating a better Australia and a better world, including: Mark Aldridge Denise Allen Bill Angus Alan Austin Tony Backhouse Tim Badrick Paul Bains Greg Barns Rev’d Dr Ray Barraclough Neil Barrett Mark Batistich Miriam Bauman Virginia Becker  Deb Bennett George Bludger Wayne Brooks Madam Butterfly Kelly Butterworth Nick Carson Dan Cass Barrie Cassidy Nancy Cato CDH Wei Ling Chau Dr Ted Christie Dave Clarke Joseph Cotta Scot Bill Deller Professor Paddy Dewan Dr Mark Diesendorf David Donovan Matthew Donovan Andrew Douglas Keith Dunstan Jennifer Elliott Bob Ellis Doug Evans Joan Evatt Dr Peter Evans Barry Everingham Philip Feinstein Terry Fewtrell JJ Fiasson David Flint Ken Flower Ruth Forsythe Dr Ian Freckelton SC Lynton Freeman Bob Fritakis Dr Jone Gaillard Ross Garrad Gee William Gladys David Glynn Jones Jai Goulding Alex Gunther Jenny Haines Sandra Hajda Graham Hardy Ludwig Heinrich Adam Henry Rodger Hills Kelly Hockley Lewis Holden Rob Hutchinson Louis Irmo Graham Jackson Allan Jamieson Andrew Jennings Peter Johnstone Dr Benjamin Thomas Jones Chris Jones Associate Professor Evan Jones Sandi Keane Major General Michael Keating Ash Kelso Andrew Kos JD Lang Tess Lawrence Jed Lea-Henry Jenny LeComte Jason Leopold Rodney E. Lever Len Liddelow Angela Long Harold Lubansky Dr Hugh McDermott Peter McGee Roy McKeen David McKenna Simon McMan Dr Julie Milland Matthew Mitchell Dr Brian Moench Carey Moore James Moore Dr Tony Moore Jordan Nash Shaun Newman Matt Norman Vincent O’Grady Max Opray Frank O’Shea Emily Osmond John Passant Kim Peart Dr Mike Pepperday Henry Pill William Rivers Pitt Gervase Poulden Gregory ‘Binnah’ Pownall John Pyke Dick Racey Graham Readfearn T.K. Riches Dr Kay Rollison Victoria Rollison Herman Royce George Said Ynes Sanz Carl Scrase Philip Shaw Blunt Shovels John Skene Graham Smith Dr RFI Smith John Smith Betty Smout Mike Stuchbery Luke Sulzberger Dave Sweeney Don Tate Julia Thiemann Damon Thomas Lorel Thomas Peter Thomas Kane Thornton Andrew Tiedt Eugene Tomison John Turnbull Jacinda Tutty Iurgi Urrutia Dr George Venturini Robert Vose Syd Walker Wil Wallace John Ward Professor John Warhurst Noel Wauchope Brad Webb Brigadier Neil Weekes Reverend Canon Dr Andrew PB White Peter Wicks Professor George Williams Matt Williams Melinda Wilson Evan Whitton Dr Klaas Woldring Jeffrey Wood Bec Zajac …. and many others. I know there is a couple from that list that leans to the left and there is a couple that leans to the right http://www.independentaustralia.net/about/ia-contributors/ If you want to read their Mission Statement here it is

Bob Ellis for one.

as if it matters. and the guy is a certifiable lunatic hat even the ALP cringe at.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 8:17pm:

John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 8:09pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:59pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? No, thats just a stab back at the lefties who complain about our links. One thing that gets at me is deception. A word to deceive or to put it another way, a word that does deceive. I put it another then lolly Was it a good or bad thing when labor made Peter Slipper Speaker? and why do you think that way? It was a bad thing because the current speaker seemed to be an honorable man. All the rest go full circle to having an honorable man lose his position. no order of relevance It was a bad idea because it goes against tradition. slipper had known issues of the past It was done to sure up a lie to an MP that gave them support through pockie reform slipper in no way deserved such a position it just looked so terrible for parliaments prestige and honor Probably others, but someone can fill in.

So was it a good idea or a bad idea that the Liberal Party repeatedly chose this man who you say "had known issues of the past" to be their representative in the Australian Parliament?

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 9:19pm:

John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel.

Please point out for us which part of the Australian independent's story you consider to be incorrect and show some evidence to support your opinion.

Until you can do that - you opinion means about as much as Progressivelol's.

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 10:31pm:

John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 9:59pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 9:19pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel. You know everything longy so who from this list are labor supporters Quote: IA has a wide range of contributors committed to creating a better Australia and a better world, including: Mark Aldridge Denise Allen Bill Angus Alan Austin Tony Backhouse Tim Badrick Paul Bains Greg Barns Rev’d Dr Ray Barraclough Neil Barrett Mark Batistich Miriam Bauman Virginia Becker  Deb Bennett George Bludger Wayne Brooks Madam Butterfly Kelly Butterworth Nick Carson Dan Cass Barrie Cassidy Nancy Cato CDH Wei Ling Chau Dr Ted Christie Dave Clarke Joseph Cotta Scot Bill Deller Professor Paddy Dewan Dr Mark Diesendorf David Donovan Matthew Donovan Andrew Douglas Keith Dunstan Jennifer Elliott Bob Ellis Doug Evans Joan Evatt Dr Peter Evans Barry Everingham Philip Feinstein Terry Fewtrell JJ Fiasson David Flint Ken Flower Ruth Forsythe Dr Ian Freckelton SC Lynton Freeman Bob Fritakis Dr Jone Gaillard Ross Garrad Gee William Gladys David Glynn Jones Jai Goulding Alex Gunther Jenny Haines Sandra Hajda Graham Hardy Ludwig Heinrich Adam Henry Rodger Hills Kelly Hockley Lewis Holden Rob Hutchinson Louis Irmo Graham Jackson Allan Jamieson Andrew Jennings Peter Johnstone Dr Benjamin Thomas Jones Chris Jones Associate Professor Evan Jones Sandi Keane Major General Michael Keating Ash Kelso Andrew Kos JD Lang Tess Lawrence Jed Lea-Henry Jenny LeComte Jason Leopold Rodney E. Lever Len Liddelow Angela Long Harold Lubansky Dr Hugh McDermott Peter McGee Roy McKeen David McKenna Simon McMan Dr Julie Milland Matthew Mitchell Dr Brian Moench Carey Moore James Moore Dr Tony Moore Jordan Nash Shaun Newman Matt Norman Vincent O’Grady Max Opray Frank O’Shea Emily Osmond John Passant Kim Peart Dr Mike Pepperday Henry Pill William Rivers Pitt Gervase Poulden Gregory ‘Binnah’ Pownall John Pyke Dick Racey Graham Readfearn T.K. Riches Dr Kay Rollison Victoria Rollison Herman Royce George Said Ynes Sanz Carl Scrase Philip Shaw Blunt Shovels John Skene Graham Smith Dr RFI Smith John Smith Betty Smout Mike Stuchbery Luke Sulzberger Dave Sweeney Don Tate Julia Thiemann Damon Thomas Lorel Thomas Peter Thomas Kane Thornton Andrew Tiedt Eugene Tomison John Turnbull Jacinda Tutty Iurgi Urrutia Dr George Venturini Robert Vose Syd Walker Wil Wallace John Ward Professor John Warhurst Noel Wauchope Brad Webb Brigadier Neil Weekes Reverend Canon Dr Andrew PB White Peter Wicks Professor George Williams Matt Williams Melinda Wilson Evan Whitton Dr Klaas Woldring Jeffrey Wood Bec Zajac …. and many others. I know there is a couple from that list that leans to the left and there is a couple that leans to the right http://www.independentaustralia.net/about/ia-contributors/ If you want to read their Mission Statement here it is Bob Ellis for one. as if it matters. and the guy is a certifiable lunatic hat even the ALP cringe at.

Yes.  Bob Ellis is certainly a left leaning lunatic.  He would even probably agree with you on that.

But he did not write the article in question.

Please point out for us which part of the Australian independent's story you consider to be incorrect and show some evidence to support your opinion.

Until you can do that - you opinion means about as much as Progressivelol's.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 10:36pm:

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 9:19pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel. Please point out for us which part of the Australian independent's story you consider to be incorrect and show some evidence to support your opinion. Until you can do that - you opinion means about as much as Progressivelol's.

ohhh now I am upset  ;D

To think I was just going to answer your last question  >:( ::)

John S wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 8:09pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:59pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? No, thats just a stab back at the lefties who complain about our links. One thing that gets at me is deception. A word to deceive or to put it another way, a word that does deceive. I put it another then lolly Was it a good or bad thing when labor made Peter Slipper Speaker? and why do you think that way?

It certainly wasnt a "mistake" since they had no way of knowing what the libs already knew (if there was anything to know). Libs prolly set it all up anyway though.

SOB

John Smith wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 9:51pm:

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 9:19pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel. In other words he is correct .... don't pretend his question is about one newspaper ... you have never, not once, ever said anything good about anything labor or any pro labor affilate since I've been on ozpolitic  ... and please don't tell me it's because they haven't done any good because that will just prove my point ....

Its the label. Some commit to a label (a bit like religion) and defend that label no matter what or how dishonest it turns out to be and obligatorily "hate" the other "side" no matter what.

SOB

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 11:08pm:

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 10:36pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 9:19pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel. Please point out for us which part of the Australian independent's story you consider to be incorrect and show some evidence to support your opinion. Until you can do that - you opinion means about as much as Progressivelol's. ohhh now I am upset  ;D To think I was just going to answer your last question  >:( ::)

Well answer the question we won't hold you back   ;D

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 10:31pm:

John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 9:59pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 9:19pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel. You know everything longy so who from this list are labor supporters Quote: IA has a wide range of contributors committed to creating a better Australia and a better world, including: Mark Aldridge Denise Allen Bill Angus Alan Austin Tony Backhouse Tim Badrick Paul Bains Greg Barns Rev’d Dr Ray Barraclough Neil Barrett Mark Batistich Miriam Bauman Virginia Becker  Deb Bennett George Bludger Wayne Brooks Madam Butterfly Kelly Butterworth Nick Carson Dan Cass Barrie Cassidy Nancy Cato CDH Wei Ling Chau Dr Ted Christie Dave Clarke Joseph Cotta Scot Bill Deller Professor Paddy Dewan Dr Mark Diesendorf David Donovan Matthew Donovan Andrew Douglas Keith Dunstan Jennifer Elliott Bob Ellis Doug Evans Joan Evatt Dr Peter Evans Barry Everingham Philip Feinstein Terry Fewtrell JJ Fiasson David Flint Ken Flower Ruth Forsythe Dr Ian Freckelton SC Lynton Freeman Bob Fritakis Dr Jone Gaillard Ross Garrad Gee William Gladys David Glynn Jones Jai Goulding Alex Gunther Jenny Haines Sandra Hajda Graham Hardy Ludwig Heinrich Adam Henry Rodger Hills Kelly Hockley Lewis Holden Rob Hutchinson Louis Irmo Graham Jackson Allan Jamieson Andrew Jennings Peter Johnstone Dr Benjamin Thomas Jones Chris Jones Associate Professor Evan Jones Sandi Keane Major General Michael Keating Ash Kelso Andrew Kos JD Lang Tess Lawrence Jed Lea-Henry Jenny LeComte Jason Leopold Rodney E. Lever Len Liddelow Angela Long Harold Lubansky Dr Hugh McDermott Peter McGee Roy McKeen David McKenna Simon McMan Dr Julie Milland Matthew Mitchell Dr Brian Moench Carey Moore James Moore Dr Tony Moore Jordan Nash Shaun Newman Matt Norman Vincent O’Grady Max Opray Frank O’Shea Emily Osmond John Passant Kim Peart Dr Mike Pepperday Henry Pill William Rivers Pitt Gervase Poulden Gregory ‘Binnah’ Pownall John Pyke Dick Racey Graham Readfearn T.K. Riches Dr Kay Rollison Victoria Rollison Herman Royce George Said Ynes Sanz Carl Scrase Philip Shaw Blunt Shovels John Skene Graham Smith Dr RFI Smith John Smith Betty Smout Mike Stuchbery Luke Sulzberger Dave Sweeney Don Tate Julia Thiemann Damon Thomas Lorel Thomas Peter Thomas Kane Thornton Andrew Tiedt Eugene Tomison John Turnbull Jacinda Tutty Iurgi Urrutia Dr George Venturini Robert Vose Syd Walker Wil Wallace John Ward Professor John Warhurst Noel Wauchope Brad Webb Brigadier Neil Weekes Reverend Canon Dr Andrew PB White Peter Wicks Professor George Williams Matt Williams Melinda Wilson Evan Whitton Dr Klaas Woldring Jeffrey Wood Bec Zajac …. and many others. I know there is a couple from that list that leans to the left and there is a couple that leans to the right http://www.independentaustralia.net/about/ia-contributors/ If you want to read their Mission Statement here it is Bob Ellis for one. as if it matters. and the guy is a certifiable lunatic hat even the ALP cringe at.

I did say there were a couple of left leaning people on that list as well as a couple of right leaning people.

Longy AKA gold_medal can only find one person in a list of about 160 that is left leaning.

So that must make the whole web site left leaning in longy's book.

One person one that list is a very good friend of Alan Jones so why would he be a contributors to a left leaning web site?

The only reason you lolly and cods are saying it is a left leaning site is because it puts articles up that don't go with your point of view.

A lot of articles on Independent Australia web site are articles that the MSM won't publish or broadcast so if you only want one side of any article just keep reading or listening to MSM and believe everything they publish.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 4:46pm:

funny how the righties are avoiding this.

I like the way the righties come on here and attack the web site it come from but has said nothing about the article. I wonder why that is do they know it could be true.

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 10:30pm:

John Smith wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 9:51pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 9:19pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel. In other words he is correct .... don't pretend his question is about one newspaper ... you have never, not once, ever said anything good about anything labor or any pro labor affilate since I've been on ozpolitic  ... and please don't tell me it's because they haven't done any good because that will just prove my point .... even today I said that Martin Ferguson was good at his job. BEFORE you posted this Must suck being wrong like you are so often.

opps, sorry .... you got one in about 10 months .... good to see, longstupidone, that you're not a partisan hack ...

John S wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 8:01am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:46pm: funny how the righties are avoiding this. I like the way the righties come on here and attack the web site it come from but has said nothing about the article. I wonder why that is do they know it could be true.

Not too bright are you. Would you like some threads repeated.

John S wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 7:51pm:

A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that?

laugh what a laugh.. dont you think that how we righties read you lefties... all is well with gillard and Co including slipper and thomo.. they can do anything they like even as appalling as they have they done.. and we lefties support them to the bitter end..

I have yet to read any condemnation of THOMO SLIPPER Or the missing millions.....

in fact the missing millions dont get a mention its all about saving gillard... or THOMO and now SLIPPER.. yet THOMO AND SLIPPER have the full support of the PM... right up until the 11th hour..

and the support on here aka this OP..is commendable..


and then when it comes to Abbott he is always wrong.. now he is called a women basher of some renown..a sexist a misogynist.... all names they have suddenly discovered?????????????????

funny how he wasnt accused of bashing women in 2010....funny that.

go read some of your lefties and see what nice things they say about the Libs..

I wont hold my breath while you look!!!!!!!!


you will find a few still whingeing about the GST though.. AWB.. WMD. killing the noble Hussein.


we are going to enjoy reminding you about

pinkbatts deaths and waste
greenloans waste
BER waste.
fuel watch waste
grocerywatch waste.
Tax Reform waste.
ETS waste.
white papers   waste
green papers.. waste..
hospital reform waste. tripping the country selling something that never happened.

computers for every child that never was

and now cannot be repaired..due to COST which could not have been taken into account when this education revolution was first thought out....by gillard of course.


water buyback??????
CARBON TAX
MINING TAX


and of course the elephant in the room'


''BOAT PEOPLE>>



etc.etc.etc.

rabbitoh07 wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2012 at 10:36pm:

gold_medal wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 9:19pm: John S wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 7:51pm: A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it. The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it. Would I be right thinking that? You would be wrong - as you often are. Ive read the 'independant' and it is anything but. it is a pro-labor apologetic propoganda peice that even prints Bob Ellis when no other self-respecting PARTISAN publication refuses his drivel. Please point out for us which part of the Australian independent's story you consider to be incorrect and show some evidence to support your opinion. Until you can do that - you opinion means about as much as Progressivelol's.

They would find that difficult because the article is built on fact.

I don't read the Aus Independent so it may well be biased and this story may be biased however it is unquestionably based on facts which to this point have been covered up and worse dishonestly misrepresented to mean something different from the real position.

Previously we only got to hear the biased spin on these facts - looking at the actual texts and the timing we were lied to.

They prefer the Bolty / Jones style spin based on nothing but more spin.

progressiveslol wrote on Nov 4^th, 2012 at 9:03am:

John S wrote on Nov 4th, 2012 at 8:01am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3rd, 2012 at 4:46pm: funny how the righties are avoiding this. I like the way the righties come on here and attack the web site it come from but has said nothing about the article. I wonder why that is do they know it could be true. Not too bright are you. Would you like some threads repeated.

whats to say about the article any idea prog??????..

isnt it as per usual claiming that Ashby is the villain and slipper is the victim.... isnt that the way this website works.???


they know without a doubt that THOMO is innocent..I am surprised they havent claimed  it was Abbott that used those credit cards..