last I heard he was Mr 14% ..

most people shocked he was still getting double figures..

anyone want to guess what number will pop up when they return....?? ;D ;D

Mr 9% maybe..

Mr Corruption wouldnt have anything to do with his unPOPULARITY would it?..

I cant even think of how they will get rid of him...

can hardly offer him an Ambassadorship can they?..

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 12:55pm:

Mr Corruption wouldnt have anything to do with his unPOPULARITY would it?..

Nope.

"The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official."

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/turc-shorten-didnt-engage-in-unlawful-conduct-says-inquiry-lawyers/news-story/cb4b74be50efed18bec0743f784b5fdd?sv=d0db1e8d8d889b2f2343cdcfd216eefd

Because hes a punching bag based on largely media hearsay and he sucks at public speaking.

Shorten is uninspiring as they come, which is sad because he can actually be a great speaker in Parliament, but when he gets in front of a camera he becomes a monotone zombie.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 12:59pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 12:55pm: Mr Corruption wouldnt have anything to do with his unPOPULARITY would it?.. Nope. "The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/turc-shorten-didnt-engage-in-unlawful-conduct-says-inquiry-lawyers/news-story/cb4b74be50efed18bec0743f784b5fdd?sv=d0db1e8d8d889b2f2343cdcfd216eefd

Could it be because he's a rapist?  >:( >:(

hang on it was not rape she was a member of young Labor   ;D ;D ;D ;D 

the dmage is done sunshine... its what people believe in.. not what YOU read on FACEBOOK that matters to them..

I cant think too many, rusted on aside...that believe he is Mr Innocent of everything...  ::) ::) ::)

like you do..

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

the dmage is done sunshine... its what people believe in.. not what YOU read on FACEBOOK that matters to them.. I cant think too many, rusted on aside...that believe he is Mr Innocent of everything...  ::) ::) ::) like you do..

"The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official."

aussie100percent wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 12:59pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 12:55pm: Mr Corruption wouldnt have anything to do with his unPOPULARITY would it?.. Nope. "The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official." http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/industrial-relations/turc-shorten-didnt-engage-in-unlawful-conduct-says-inquiry-lawyers/news-story/cb4b74be50efed18bec0743f784b5fdd?sv=d0db1e8d8d889b2f2343cdcfd216eefd Could it be because he's a rapist?  >:( >:( hang on it was not rape she was a member of young Labor   ;D ;D ;D ;D

what about deceiver of his wife......my god which ALP member hasnt done that????>. :D :D :D

its hysterical...they are flat out finding a replacement that hasnt got skeletons in their cupboard...

when they can figure out how to get rid of him..... ::)

gweggy will start a following on FACEBOOK...a SAVE SHORTARSE FUND..... if they ever find anyone.

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:04pm:

I cant think.

That's an understatement.

because they don't have Abbott to hate on

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:05pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:04pm: the dmage is done sunshine... its what people believe in.. not what YOU read on FACEBOOK that matters to them.. I cant think too many, rusted on aside...that believe he is Mr Innocent of everything...  ::) ::) ::) like you do.. "The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official."

oh thats right you like lawyers dont you... gillard anyone..

they couldnt pin him on it.....because he had moved onto the front bench by the time it was all signed off on..........but he organised it all...even still brags about how he dealt with these criminal construction companies...... who are also on the list to be investigated... ::) ::)..

remember how he waffled and waffled....a good sign of someone not in a good place...

but you keep your picture of him on your wall gweggy.... he would like that.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:08pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:04pm: I cant think. That's an understatement.

this guy is sooo clever... hey the new leader of the labor party..

and we had him first...

wow gweg with ad lib like that your a winner..

Yawn - another dumb thread that shows the Right's obsession with Shorten.   Who really cares?    Personally, I was happy to see Abbott stay as Leader of the Coalition as it would have seen Labor win an election with a massive swing.  Now you have Turnbull, I would have thought the Rightards would be hoping Shorten would stay on a LOTO - he is after all, your only chance of winning this years election.

With so many Libs leaving the party, defecting or trying to defect to other parties,texting pictures of possible conquests to other MPs, groping their female staff,   being fired or just plain out terrible at their portfolios, Shorten is your shining light!    Invite him around for dinner - he is your best hope for retaining power. 

Coalition - the grubby party - staying in power thanks to Shorten

why IS SHORTEN SO UNPOPULAR

Turdball is popular for no logical reason and in a two person comparison if one is popular it can only come at the expense of the other.

As people work out that Turdy isn't the real deal we will see shortens numbers increase.

A budget should be worth 10 to 15 points to Shortens popularity.

A decision or policy from Turdy should see Shorten improve in the polls.

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:12pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:05pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:04pm: the dmage is done sunshine... its what people believe in.. not what YOU read on FACEBOOK that matters to them.. I cant think too many, rusted on aside...that believe he is Mr Innocent of everything...  ::) ::) ::) like you do.. "The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official." oh thats right you like lawyers dont you... gillard anyone.. they couldnt pin him on it.....because he had moved onto the front bench by the time it was all signed off on..........but he organised it all...even still brags about how he dealt with these criminal construction companies...... who are also on the list to be investigated... ::) ::).. remember how he waffled and waffled....a good sign of someone not in a good place... but you keep your picture of him on your wall gweggy.... he would like that.

"The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official."

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:47pm:

why IS SHORTEN SO UNPOPULAR Turdball is popular for no logical reason and in a two person comparison if one is popular it can only come at the expense of the other. As people work out that Turdy isn't the real deal we will see shortens numbers increase. A budget should be worth 10 to 15 points to Shortens popularity. A decision or policy from Turdy should see Shorten improve in the polls.

thats ODD I could have swore this was about SHORTARSE..wonder whos made the mistake?... couldnt be the lefty though could it??...


ok so Mr 14% going down isnt unpopular..

what number do you think makes them UNPOPULAR as far as as lefties are concerned???>.. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:50pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:12pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:05pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:04pm: the dmage is done sunshine... its what people believe in.. not what YOU read on FACEBOOK that matters to them.. I cant think too many, rusted on aside...that believe he is Mr Innocent of everything...  ::) ::) ::) like you do.. "The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official." oh thats right you like lawyers dont you... gillard anyone.. they couldnt pin him on it.....because he had moved onto the front bench by the time it was all signed off on..........but he organised it all...even still brags about how he dealt with these criminal construction companies...... who are also on the list to be investigated... ::) ::).. remember how he waffled and waffled....a good sign of someone not in a good place... but you keep your picture of him on your wall gweggy.... he would like that. "The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official."

keep that pic on that wall gweggy.. do a selfy for him he needs all that lurv..........send him love and cuddles from cods.. tell him to hang in there.. turnbull needs him.. ;D ;D ;D

He's so unpopular because he's an insignificant shop steward who enjoys his moment of fame.......but has nothing at all to offer this country's electorate to progress Australia into the future.......

He's a clown...........not unlike gweggy..... ;D ;D ;D

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:52pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:50pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:12pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:05pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:04pm: the dmage is done sunshine... its what people believe in.. not what YOU read on FACEBOOK that matters to them.. I cant think too many, rusted on aside...that believe he is Mr Innocent of everything...  ::) ::) ::) like you do.. "The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official." oh thats right you like lawyers dont you... gillard anyone.. they couldnt pin him on it.....because he had moved onto the front bench by the time it was all signed off on..........but he organised it all...even still brags about how he dealt with these criminal construction companies...... who are also on the list to be investigated... ::) ::).. remember how he waffled and waffled....a good sign of someone not in a good place... but you keep your picture of him on your wall gweggy.... he would like that. "The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official." keep that pic on that wall gweggy.. do a selfy for him he needs all that lurv..........send him love and cuddles from cods.. tell him to hang in there.. turnbull needs him.. ;D ;D ;D

I'm not a fan of Bill Shorten.

Never have been.

I'm just stating the facts (look that word up in a dictionary):

"The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official."

While you've got the dictionary open, look up the word 'objective' too.

The Labor Party has out lived it's usefulness, it's gone into "famine" and cant find a way out, it's well past it's use-by date

Fuzzball wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:53pm:

He's so unpopular because he's an insignificant shop steward who enjoys his moment of fame.......but has nothing at all to offer this country's electorate to progress Australia into the future....... He's a clown...........not unlike gweggy..... ;D ;D ;D

I bet shortarse hasnt got a picture of gweggy on his bedroom wall though.. :P

thats the difference...

gweggy and billy keep up on facebook...very intimate..

now hes pretending hes not a fan of shorty.....so coy!

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 2:02pm:

now hes pretending hes not a fan of shorty.....

Again, just stating the facts (did you get that dictionary out?).

I'm not a fan of Bill Shorten, and I've said so on many occasions.

Your inability to understand the basic difference between presenting objective facts and being a fan of someone makes you look a little silly, dear.

Did I say "little"?

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 2:01pm:

The Labor Party has out lived it's usefulness, it's gone into "famine" and cant find a way out, it's well past it's use-by date

thats what i have said for a long time.. they live in the past... its like look what we did in 1925... like really??...they havent moved with the times.. and now its run by gangsters and the self interest mob....its a stepping stone in to govt..

its wrong wrong wrong...

shorarse tells me everything that is WRONG with the LABOR party...

everything...he is a deceiver..a cheater..a bully...he has no loyalty..he has a massive ego....he is definitely out of his element in politics....he has as much charm as a black widow spider..

its been shown he doesnt give a stuff about union members...its all about whats in it for bill...penalty rates or big payments to the union... >:( >:(

and thats the way the whole Union business has gone...

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 2:07pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:02pm: now hes pretending hes not a fan of shorty..... Again, just stating the facts (did you get that dictionary out?). I'm not a fan of Bill Shorten, and I've said so on many occasions. Your inability to understand the basic difference between presenting subjective facts and being a fan of someone makes you look a little silly, dear. Did I say "little"?

we know you idolise the union and billy boy is the WONDERBOY of the union....


sent that selfie yet gweggy.......we know you are dying too... dont bad mouth billy... he needs you....come on you can be honest with us.... ;) ;) ;).. bobby wont read this....

did you send my love and cuddles...

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 2:10pm:

its been shown he doesnt give a stuff about union members...its all about whats in it for bill...penalty rates or big payments to the union...

How do penalty rates benefit Shorten instead of union members, cods?

Please enlighten us all.

Actually there is no VALID reason.

LNP lies and smear tactics and a pro-fascism MSM have a LOT to answer for.

Why are some people so bitter and twisted about Bill, he is actually a nice bloke I am sure!  :)

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 2:19pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:10pm: its been shown he doesnt give a stuff about union members...its all about whats in it for bill...penalty rates or big payments to the union... How do penalty rates benefit Shorten instead of union members, cods? Please enlighten us all.

where do you think the $300.000 in shonky donations came from ??? you didnt read that bit did you...you cant believe everything gets on FACEBOOK.. gweg....it doesnt..

some things Bill doesnt tell you...only little things nothing for you to worry about...

Saul Goodman wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 2:22pm:

Why are some people so bitter and twisted about Bill, he is actually a nice bloke I am sure!  :)

you could try asking his ex wife....

I luv im saul..... hes the best thing the libs have got.. no other word for it.. Mr 14%....I see no ones taking a shot at where he will end up. bt the time the election is announced.....my money is on Mr  9%.. you bwave enough to take a punt?.

I don't think much of Shorten and it is a personal thought.    Having said that, much of what is written about Shorten on these boards about his union dealings and private life  is untrue, has been proven untrue, but makes for salacious writing and read by the "more mentally challenged" of those who post

My dislike for Shorten stems from his appearance at the Beaconsfield Mine cave in some time ago in Tasmania.     I felt he was using the entrapment of two men for his own ego boost and a lot of what he was fluffing around doing was more for himself than the miners.  I lost a lot of respect for him that day, and yes, the Labor Party can do much better than him as their Leader.

Bill Shorten wasnt interested in Beaconsfield until they found two men still alive.. it was left in the hands of Paul Howes..

Bill then  took over and became the star reporter..opportunity knocks..

I dont know but I think that may have been a turning point for Paul Howes...

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 2:01pm:

The Labor Party has out lived it's usefulness, it's gone into "famine" and cant find a way out, it's well past it's use-by date

yes ... I remember hearing the same thing repeated about QLD labor when Newman won office ...  ;D ;D ;D ;D turns out one did live out it's usefulness, and it wasn't labor  :D :D

Vic wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 2:48pm:

much of what is written about Shorten on these boards about his union dealings and private life  is untrue, has been proven untrue, but makes for salacious writing and read by the "more mentally challenged" of those who post

or the town drunks

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 3:13pm:

Bill Shorten wasnt interested in Beaconsfield until they found two men still alive.. it was left in the hands of Paul Howes.. Bill then  took over and became the star reporter..opportunity knocks.. I dont know but I think that may have been a turning point for Paul Howes...

Again, you have just made up facts....re-writing history.  He was at Beaconsfield a couple of days before it was discovered that the two were alive.

Why? Politics. Next.

Aussie wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 3:24pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Bill Shorten wasnt interested in Beaconsfield until they found two men still alive.. it was left in the hands of Paul Howes.. Bill then  took over and became the star reporter..opportunity knocks.. I dont know but I think that may have been a turning point for Paul Howes... Again, you have just made up facts....re-writing history.  He was at Beaconsfield a couple of days before it was discovered that the two were alive.

I am sure you have th eproof..

almost no one had heard of shorten until beaconsfield..

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 3:29pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:24pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Bill Shorten wasnt interested in Beaconsfield until they found two men still alive.. it was left in the hands of Paul Howes.. Bill then  took over and became the star reporter..opportunity knocks.. I dont know but I think that may have been a turning point for Paul Howes... Again, you have just made up facts....re-writing history.  He was at Beaconsfield a couple of days before it was discovered that the two were alive. I am sure you have th eproof.. almost no one had heard of shorten until beaconsfield..

I am sure I can dig it up if you reckon I am wrong.

I am amazed how many people want to be really nasty and put down a good union man, helped his fellow workers for years, realised he was capable of better things in life (politics), aqua would be singing his praises i am sure

We need men of vision like this!

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 2:43pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:19pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:10pm: its been shown he doesnt give a stuff about union members...its all about whats in it for bill...penalty rates or big payments to the union... How do penalty rates benefit Shorten instead of union members, cods? Please enlighten us all. where do you think the $300.000 in shonky donations came from ??? ..

You have no idea what penalty rates are, do you cods?

Unbelievable.

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 3:13pm:

I dont know but I think

Correct on the first part, and incorrect on the second.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 4:03pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:19pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:10pm: its been shown he doesnt give a stuff about union members...its all about whats in it for bill...penalty rates or big payments to the union... How do penalty rates benefit Shorten instead of union members, cods? Please enlighten us all. where do you think the $300.000 in shonky donations came from ??? .. You have no idea what penalty rates are, do you cods? Unbelievable.

OH I WOULDNT BE TOO SURE ABOUT THAT GWEGGY


FACTS..

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/australian-workers-union-traded-off-2-million-in-worker-penalty-rates-and-wages-for-25000-per-year-20150528-ghbesh.html

Mr Stoljar said the arrangement meant that some workers were paid about $18.14 per hour instead of at least $50.17 per hour - about 176 per cent more that would have applied under the 2010 Award.
"[So] far as Cleanevent was concerned, keeping the MOU in place saved it some $2 million per year that it would otherwise have to pay its employees by way of wages or penalty rates," he said.



FACTS...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-03/bradley-does-bill-shorten-really-deserve-this-free-pass/6744212


What legitimate interest does a union have in soliciting money from employers with whom it is negotiating on its members' behalf? Its real interest, no doubt, is in funding its own operations and perhaps pursuing broader political purposes. The money comes in very handy, I'm sure.





FACTS

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cleanevent-finance-manager-julianne-page-admits-australian-workers-union-deal-was-not-a-good-look-20151019-gkcd0t.html

Julianne Page worked as a finance manager at Spotless Cleaning in 2006 and its new owner Cleanevent in 2010 when a new pay deal was struck, extending 2006 pay rates to workers, which were well below 2010 modern award rates.
When counsel assisting Jeremy Stoljar, SC, asked her if she thought that making the payment to the union would save the company $1.5 million, Ms Page said "yes".





there are many examples.. but I thought for the sake of peace I would get the info from the LEFTY point of view....ok not FACEBOOK.. but I am sure the ABC and the DRum will suit you..

give them a try and read the whole thing....

as they each talk about different aspects of Unions receiving large payments of questionable MONEY...

that was never disclosed to their members???..
greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 4:04pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:13pm: I dont know but I think Correct on the first part, and incorrect on the second.

   ::) ::) ::)

Mr Egg on Face Gweggy... ;D ;D ;D ;D

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 3:17pm:

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:01pm: The Labor Party has out lived it's usefulness, it's gone into "famine" and cant find a way out, it's well past it's use-by date yes ... I remember hearing the same thing repeated about QLD labor when Newman won office ...  ;D ;D ;D ;D turns out one did live out it's usefulness, and it wasn't labor  :D :D

Nope they're out of date and useless, not everyone has cottoned on to that fact yet. Any more social programs and we'll be poorer than North Korea then Shorty can change his name to Kim Ill Jughead

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 1:58pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:52pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:50pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:12pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:05pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 1:04pm: the dmage is done sunshine... its what people believe in.. not what YOU read on FACEBOOK that matters to them.. I cant think too many, rusted on aside...that believe he is Mr Innocent of everything...  ::) ::) ::) like you do.. "The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official." oh thats right you like lawyers dont you... gillard anyone.. they couldnt pin him on it.....because he had moved onto the front bench by the time it was all signed off on..........but he organised it all...even still brags about how he dealt with these criminal construction companies...... who are also on the list to be investigated... ::) ::).. remember how he waffled and waffled....a good sign of someone not in a good place... but you keep your picture of him on your wall gweggy.... he would like that. "The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official." keep that pic on that wall gweggy.. do a selfy for him he needs all that lurv..........send him love and cuddles from cods.. tell him to hang in there.. turnbull needs him.. ;D ;D ;D I'm not a fan of Bill Shorten. Never have been. I'm just stating the facts (look that word up in a dictionary): "The trade union royal commission inquiry’s lawyers say Labor leader Bill Shorten didn’t engage in criminal or unlawful conduct while a union official." While you've got the dictionary open, look up the word 'objective' too.

but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings.

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 5:03pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 4:03pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:43pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:19pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:10pm: its been shown he doesnt give a stuff about union members...its all about whats in it for bill...penalty rates or big payments to the union... How do penalty rates benefit Shorten instead of union members, cods? Please enlighten us all. where do you think the $300.000 in shonky donations came from ??? .. You have no idea what penalty rates are, do you cods? Unbelievable. OH I WOULDNT BE TOO SURE ABOUT THAT GWEGGY FACTS.. http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/australian-workers-union-traded-off-2-million-in-worker-penalty-rates-and-wages-for-25000-per-year-20150528-ghbesh.html Mr Stoljar said the arrangement meant that some workers were paid about $18.14 per hour instead of at least $50.17 per hour - about 176 per cent more that would have applied under the 2010 Award. "[So] far as Cleanevent was concerned, keeping the MOU in place saved it some $2 million per year that it would otherwise have to pay its employees by way of wages or penalty rates," he said. FACTS... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-03/bradley-does-bill-shorten-really-deserve-this-free-pass/6744212 What legitimate interest does a union have in soliciting money from employers with whom it is negotiating on its members' behalf? Its real interest, no doubt, is in funding its own operations and perhaps pursuing broader political purposes. The money comes in very handy, I'm sure. FACTS http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/cleanevent-finance-manager-julianne-page-admits-australian-workers-union-deal-was-not-a-good-look-20151019-gkcd0t.html Julianne Page worked as a finance manager at Spotless Cleaning in 2006 and its new owner Cleanevent in 2010 when a new pay deal was struck, extending 2006 pay rates to workers, which were well below 2010 modern award rates. When counsel assisting Jeremy Stoljar, SC, asked her if she thought that making the payment to the union would save the company $1.5 million, Ms Page said "yes". there are many examples.. but I thought for the sake of peace I would get the info from the LEFTY point of view....ok not FACEBOOK.. but I am sure the ABC and the DRum will suit you.. give them a try and read the whole thing.... as they each talk about different aspects of Unions receiving large payments of questionable MONEY... that was never disclosed to their members???.. greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 4:04pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:13pm: I dont know but I think Correct on the first part, and incorrect on the second.    ::) ::) ::) Mr Egg on Face Gweggy... ;D ;D ;D ;D

But it wasnt UNLAWFUL and thats all peccahead cares about. after all, in the ALP, remaining legal is the standard that aim for. ethical, moral and upstanding went a LONG time ago.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 5:24pm:

but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings.

They do. This has been explained to you before.

who's Bull Shitten?

isn't Penny Wong the leader of the Labrats?

melielongtime:


Quote:

but he DID engage in illegal behaviour

Can you ring Jeremy Stoljar (Counsel Assisting) and Commissioner Heydon and let them know they each have been negligent in failing to conclude that Shorten engaged in illegal behaviour?  Let us know how you go.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 5:24pm:

but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings.

longstupidone making it up as he goes  :D :D :D :D

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 5:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:17pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:01pm: The Labor Party has out lived it's usefulness, it's gone into "famine" and cant find a way out, it's well past it's use-by date yes ... I remember hearing the same thing repeated about QLD labor when Newman won office ...  ;D ;D ;D ;D turns out one did live out it's usefulness, and it wasn't labor  :D :D Nope they're out of date and useless, not everyone has cottoned on to that fact yet. Any more social programs and we'll be poorer than North Korea then Shorty can change his name to Kim Ill Jughead

Kim Ill Jughead? really? lets see now

Korean dictator:
- censures what the media can or cannot say
- stops people speaking out against the govt. or govt. run facilities
- creates and promotes an us v's them mentality
- jails people indefinitely with no charges or convictions
- tries to jail political opponents
- no transparency
- no accountability
- says one thing, does another



Liberal party:
- censures what the media can or cannot say
- stops people speaking out against the govt. or govt. run facilities
- creates and promotes an us v's them mentality
- jails people indefinitely with no charges or convictions
- tries to jail political opponents
- no transparency
- no accountability
- says one thing, does another


;D ;D

Mal Jung Turncoat sounds about right :D :D :D

Aussie wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 3:31pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:24pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Bill Shorten wasnt interested in Beaconsfield until they found two men still alive.. it was left in the hands of Paul Howes.. Bill then  took over and became the star reporter..opportunity knocks.. I dont know but I think that may have been a turning point for Paul Howes... Again, you have just made up facts....re-writing history.  He was at Beaconsfield a couple of days before it was discovered that the two were alive. I am sure you have th eproof.. almost no one had heard of shorten until beaconsfield.. I am sure I can dig it up if you reckon I am wrong.

yeah have a go... shortarse needs all the support he can get.....even the rusted on are NOW claiming they aint partial..to him..

not a word against him since he was elected though... funny that.

Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 5:21pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:17pm: Bias_2012 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:01pm: The Labor Party has out lived it's usefulness, it's gone into "famine" and cant find a way out, it's well past it's use-by date yes ... I remember hearing the same thing repeated about QLD labor when Newman won office ...  ;D ;D ;D ;D turns out one did live out it's usefulness, and it wasn't labor  :D :D Nope they're out of date and useless, not everyone has cottoned on to that fact yet. Any more social programs and we'll be poorer than North Korea then Shorty can change his name to Kim Ill Jughead

shortarse would be on latrine duty in Nth Korea.. only a dopey country like Australia would select something like him  for a leader...

then I dunno Donald Trump   is coming a close second.. to Dill of the Week..

if this is the best the West has got.. god help us.

Why is Shorten so unpopular ?

For destroying Tony and taking away the daily laughs and cringe worthy moments he provided with all the social media mock ups

Damn you Bill

Its time wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 6:17pm:

Why is Shorten so unpopular ? For destroying Tony and taking away the daily laughs and cringe worthy moments he provided with all the social media mock ups Damn you Bill

bill did what..


  ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D


you should do stand up...

no dont do that bill needs you and people like you... anymore at home like you??.. Bill will send signed pics of himself..


;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 6:07pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:31pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:24pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Bill Shorten wasnt interested in Beaconsfield until they found two men still alive.. it was left in the hands of Paul Howes.. Bill then  took over and became the star reporter..opportunity knocks.. I dont know but I think that may have been a turning point for Paul Howes... Again, you have just made up facts....re-writing history.  He was at Beaconsfield a couple of days before it was discovered that the two were alive. I am sure you have th eproof.. almost no one had heard of shorten until beaconsfield.. I am sure I can dig it up if you reckon I am wrong. yeah have a go... shortarse needs all the support he can get.....even the rusted on are NOW claiming they aint partial..to him.. not a word against him since he was elected though... funny that.

So....you are saying I made it up?    You, as usual, are wrong.

Link.


Quote:

"When we arrived on Friday, it looked pretty grim," he told The Age. "I went through (the) Longford (gas plant explosion) and I saw what catastrophic workplace fatalities can do to a community." The subsequent discovery on Sunday that miners Brant Webb and Todd Russell were still alive changed the mood of Beaconsfield and brought with it a barrage of media attention.

Aussie wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 6:28pm:

cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 6:07pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:31pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:29pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:24pm: cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Bill Shorten wasnt interested in Beaconsfield until they found two men still alive.. it was left in the hands of Paul Howes.. Bill then  took over and became the star reporter..opportunity knocks.. I dont know but I think that may have been a turning point for Paul Howes... Again, you have just made up facts....re-writing history.  He was at Beaconsfield a couple of days before it was discovered that the two were alive. I am sure you have th eproof.. almost no one had heard of shorten until beaconsfield.. I am sure I can dig it up if you reckon I am wrong. yeah have a go... shortarse needs all the support he can get.....even the rusted on are NOW claiming they aint partial..to him.. not a word against him since he was elected though... funny that. So....you are saying I made it up?    You, as usual, are wrong. Link. Quote: "When we arrived on Friday, it looked pretty grim," he told The Age. "I went through (the) Longford (gas plant explosion) and I saw what catastrophic workplace fatalities can do to a community." The subsequent discovery on Sunday that miners Brant Webb and Todd Russell were still alive changed the mood of Beaconsfield and brought with it a barrage of media attention.

there is no task more pointless than finding cods evidence of anything contrary to her stated position. She'll just ignore it and continue on her drunken rants anyway. Just look how often she mentions shortens supposed corruption even though a liberal RC found he had nothing to answer to.  :D :D :D

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 6:07pm:

- censures what the media can or cannot say - stops people speaking out against the govt. or govt. run facilities - creates and promotes an us v's them mentality - jails people indefinitely with no charges or convictions - tries to jail political opponents - no transparency - no accountability - says one thing, does another

Crikey, those sounds very familiar, might be Australia already I reckon, under both the Libs and Labs .... I've never voted for either because of whats in that list

Both are past their use-by date, we need to be free of them and start again, without the master-slave mentality this time

Quote:

there is no task more pointless than finding cods evidence of anything contrary to her stated position. She'll just ignore it and continue on her drunken rants anyway. Just look how often she mentions shortens supposed corruption even though a liberal RC found he had nothing to answer to.  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy

I acknowledge your point.  Yet, I am quite happy to provide proof with links which establish that she is wrong.  Maybe one day, she will understand.

The problem with Shorten is  that he comes across as a little sissy. He doesn't look or act like a great leader. Image is as important as action to a leader. He's definitely not a Putin type, that's for sure. Gillard could take Shorten in a fight I reckon. The muscles in Gillard's fat ass could produce a kick that would push Shortens tiny raison nuts out of his eye sockets.

Aussie wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 6:36pm:

Quote: there is no task more pointless than finding cods evidence of anything contrary to her stated position. She'll just ignore it and continue on her drunken rants anyway. Just look how often she mentions shortens supposed corruption even though a liberal RC found he had nothing to answer to.  Cheesy Cheesy Cheesy I acknowledge your point.  Yet, I am quite happy to provide proof with links which establish that she is wrong.  Maybe one day, she will understand.

you have more chance of the leaders of ISIS converting to Buddhism :D :D :D

Poll

Its time wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 6:17pm:

Why is Shorten so unpopular ? For destroying Tony and taking away the daily laughs and cringe worthy moments he provided with all the social media mock ups Damn you Bill

A sad loss to the cartoonists, lampoonists, and stand-up comedians of Australia.....

John Smith wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 6:32pm:

there is no task more pointless than finding cods evidence of anything contrary to her stated position. She'll just ignore it and continue on her drunken rants anyway. Just look how often she mentions shortens supposed corruption even though a liberal RC found he had nothing to answer to.

Yes, you are most certainly correct.

And the same can be said for Longy.

A strange pair, those two.

oh look =numpty has a winner.. and gweggy and friend are right there with him hanging on his coat tails...excellent stuff...Mr 14% will be so happy with his groupies..well done girls.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 7:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 6:32pm: there is no task more pointless than finding cods evidence of anything contrary to her stated position. She'll just ignore it and continue on her drunken rants anyway. Just look how often she mentions shortens supposed corruption even though a liberal RC found he had nothing to answer to.  Yes, you are most certainly correct. And the same can be said for Longy. A strange pair, those two.

Indeed.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 7:37pm:

John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 6:32pm: there is no task more pointless than finding cods evidence of anything contrary to her stated position. She'll just ignore it and continue on her drunken rants anyway. Just look how often she mentions shortens supposed corruption even though a liberal RC found he had nothing to answer to.  Yes, you are most certainly correct. And the same can be said for Longy. A strange pair, those two.

I see no point picking on Cods. She is entitled to her view and her say if we agree with her or not.

Besides Macca, AP, Maria and others are more reluctant to understand the written word if they don't like what it is saying.

Vic wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 2:48pm:

I don't think much of Shorten and it is a personal thought.    Having said that, much of what is written about Shorten on these boards about his union dealings and private life  is untrue, has been proven untrue, but makes for salacious writing and read by the "more mentally challenged" of those who post My dislike for Shorten stems from his appearance at the Beaconsfield Mine cave in some time ago in Tasmania.     I felt he was using the entrapment of two men for his own ego boost and a lot of what he was fluffing around doing was more for himself than the miners.  I lost a lot of respect for him that day, and yes, the Labor Party can do much better than him as their Leader.

cods wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 3:13pm:

Bill Shorten wasnt interested in Beaconsfield until they found two men still alive.. it was left in the hands of Paul Howes.. Bill then  took over and became the star reporter..opportunity knocks.. I dont know but I think that may have been a turning point for Paul Howes...

See cods you can make some good posts, without bile, without going obtuse on the facts, that are concise and make sense. It'd be good to read it more often rather than listening to you singing your version of
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew
for the Libs, even the ones that you think are scum like MT.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 10:33pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 7:37pm: John Smith wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 6:32pm: there is no task more pointless than finding cods evidence of anything contrary to her stated position. She'll just ignore it and continue on her drunken rants anyway. Just look how often she mentions shortens supposed corruption even though a liberal RC found he had nothing to answer to.  Yes, you are most certainly correct. And the same can be said for Longy. A strange pair, those two. I see no point picking on Cods. She is entitled to her view and her say if we agree with her or not. Besides Macca, AP, Maria and others are more reluctant to understand the written word if they don't like what it is saying.

No-one is doing that.  She posts what she posts as is her right, and it is usually totally irrelevant, factually incorrect, or 'Shortarse/Thommo'.....or the trite 'won't someone think of the kids/victims' (~ as if no-one other than she does.)  She is answerable for all of that, just like the rest of us are.

Setanta wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 10:36pm:

Vic wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 2:48pm: I don't think much of Shorten and it is a personal thought.    Having said that, much of what is written about Shorten on these boards about his union dealings and private life  is untrue, has been proven untrue, but makes for salacious writing and read by the "more mentally challenged" of those who post My dislike for Shorten stems from his appearance at the Beaconsfield Mine cave in some time ago in Tasmania.     I felt he was using the entrapment of two men for his own ego boost and a lot of what he was fluffing around doing was more for himself than the miners.  I lost a lot of respect for him that day, and yes, the Labor Party can do much better than him as their Leader. cods wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 3:13pm: Bill Shorten wasnt interested in Beaconsfield until they found two men still alive.. it was left in the hands of Paul Howes.. Bill then  took over and became the star reporter..opportunity knocks.. I dont know but I think that may have been a turning point for Paul Howes... See cods you can make some good posts, without bile, without going obtuse on the facts, that are concise and make sense. It'd be good to read it more often rather than listening to you singing your version of https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DwBirf4BWew for the Libs, even the ones that you think are scum like MT.

Except of course....as I have linked/proven up there ^^^^ she is totally wrong.

Here, again, is the proof.

Link.

cods is massively obsessed with Shorten.

Cods, will you be voting Shorten given you can't vote Liberals?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 10:47pm:

cods is massively obsessed with Shorten. Cods, will you be voting Shorten given you can't vote Liberals?

I can not recall her ever referring the Shorten at all. The guy she is obsessed with is called Shortarse, easy to get them confused..

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 10:52pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:47pm: cods is massively obsessed with Shorten. Cods, will you be voting Shorten given you can't vote Liberals? I can not recall her ever referring the Shorten at all. The guy she is obsessed with is called Shortarse, easy to get them confused..

I'm just looking forward to seeing her vote for Labor, because she cannot vote Liberals.  It'll go against her tirade of the past 4 months since poor Tony got kicked out so viciously by Malcolm Turnbull.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 10:57pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:52pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:47pm: cods is massively obsessed with Shorten. Cods, will you be voting Shorten given you can't vote Liberals? I can not recall her ever referring the Shorten at all. The guy she is obsessed with is called Shortarse, easy to get them confused.. I'm just looking forward to seeing her vote for Labor, because she cannot vote Liberals.  It'll go against her tirade of the past 4 months since poor Tony got kicked out so viciously by Malcolm Turnbull.

She doesn't understand how our voting system works, so she's decided not to vote at all.

She's going to get her name crossed out at the polling booth, and then scribble "Shortarse sucks" on her ballot paper.

What a disgrace.

Aussie wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 10:46pm:

Except of course....as I have linked/proven up there ^^^^ she is totally wrong. Here, again, is the proof. Link.

It's kinda how I remember it. Much like Big.

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 11:02pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:57pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:52pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:47pm: cods is massively obsessed with Shorten. Cods, will you be voting Shorten given you can't vote Liberals? I can not recall her ever referring the Shorten at all. The guy she is obsessed with is called Shortarse, easy to get them confused.. I'm just looking forward to seeing her vote for Labor, because she cannot vote Liberals.  It'll go against her tirade of the past 4 months since poor Tony got kicked out so viciously by Malcolm Turnbull. She doesn't understand how our voting system works, so she's decided not to vote at all. She's going to get her name crossed out at the polling booth, and then scribble "Shortarse sucks" on her ballot paper. What a disgrace.

So then if she is going to donkey that means her entire opinion doesn't matter.

Cods, come back in 2019.

.. because, unlike Tony and Joe, he hasn't had the opportunity to show the real people how stupid he really is....

These private school kids are all the same......... only naive and educated in how to advance one's self..... and fork the rest....

mothra wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 5:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before.

i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context.

Aussie wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 5:50pm:

melielongtime: Quote: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour Can you ring Jeremy Stoljar (Counsel Assisting) and Commissioner Heydon and let them know they each have been negligent in failing to conclude that Shorten engaged in illegal behaviour?  Let us know how you go.

satire is difficult enough at the best of times, but even harder when your audience (ie you) is a dolt.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 11:44pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 11:02pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:57pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:52pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:47pm: cods is massively obsessed with Shorten. Cods, will you be voting Shorten given you can't vote Liberals? I can not recall her ever referring the Shorten at all. The guy she is obsessed with is called Shortarse, easy to get them confused.. I'm just looking forward to seeing her vote for Labor, because she cannot vote Liberals.  It'll go against her tirade of the past 4 months since poor Tony got kicked out so viciously by Malcolm Turnbull. She doesn't understand how our voting system works, so she's decided not to vote at all. She's going to get her name crossed out at the polling booth, and then scribble "Shortarse sucks" on her ballot paper. What a disgrace. So then if she is going to donkey that means her entire opinion doesn't matter. Cods, come back in 2019.

god I love the attention I get..  its must make numpty and gweg jealous to their cores...caws....calls....well I am sure gweggy will know which word is which..he is so clever with words.you know.

I cant believe I have this many fans.... they follow me avidly on cwa....and now on just about every thread... i even acquire  my own thread in PA>.. where I almost never venture...its a thrill I can tell you..

I am over whelmed indeed..

thank you to all my ardent followers.....what can I say thank you...... seems well............. not enough somehow..

I must ask fd for my own board in the members run section..

what to call it...

what about..


LEFTIES  OBSESSIONS WITH CODS>..

I love it already....


dear readers of my posts.....thank you thank you thank you..

I have never felt so important... or......loved really! :)

cods wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:24am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 11:44pm: greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 11:02pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:57pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:52pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:47pm: cods is massively obsessed with Shorten. Cods, will you be voting Shorten given you can't vote Liberals? I can not recall her ever referring the Shorten at all. The guy she is obsessed with is called Shortarse, easy to get them confused.. I'm just looking forward to seeing her vote for Labor, because she cannot vote Liberals.  It'll go against her tirade of the past 4 months since poor Tony got kicked out so viciously by Malcolm Turnbull. She doesn't understand how our voting system works, so she's decided not to vote at all. She's going to get her name crossed out at the polling booth, and then scribble "Shortarse sucks" on her ballot paper. What a disgrace. So then if she is going to donkey that means her entire opinion doesn't matter. Cods, come back in 2019. god I love the attention I get..  its must make numpty and gweg jealous to their cores...caws....calls....well I am sure gweggy will know which word is which..he is so clever with words.you know. I cant believe I have this many fans.... they follow me avidly on cwa....and now on just about every thread... i even acquire  my own thread in PA>.. where I almost never venture...its a thrill I can tell you.. I am over whelmed indeed.. thank you to all my ardent followers.....what can I say thank you...... seems well............. not enough somehow.. I must ask fd for my own board in the members run section.. what to call it... what about.. LEFTIES  OBSESSIONS WITH CODS>.. I love it already.... dear readers of my posts.....thank you thank you thank you.. I have never felt so important... or......loved really! :)

Yes, we all love you cods. You are one of a kind.

I look forward to seeing you vote for shorten :)))

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:12am:

mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context.

Just because you lack the mental agility to understand the difference, it doesn't mean there isn't one.

I'll explain...  again.

Illegal means there is a specific law passed bu a legislative body that makes it illegal.

Unlawful means something that goes against the established law without there being a specific law enacted by a legislative body to condemn it.

There are not specific laws for every wrong doing. These acts are unlawful without being illegal.

Do you understand now? Or would you like the dictionary definitions?

mothra wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:35am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:12am: mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context. Just because you lack the mental agility to understand the difference, it doesn't mean there isn't one. I'll explain...  again. Illegal means there is a specific law passed bu a legislative body that makes it illegal. Unlawful means something that goes against the established law without there being a specific law enacted by a legislative body to condemn it. There are not specific laws for every wrong doing. These acts are unlawful without being illegal. Do you understand now? Or would you like the dictionary definitions?

Mothra is correct, though in most cases it makes no practical difference.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:13am:

Aussie wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:50pm: melielongtime: Quote: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour Can you ring Jeremy Stoljar (Counsel Assisting) and Commissioner Heydon and let them know they each have been negligent in failing to conclude that Shorten engaged in illegal behaviour?  Let us know how you go. satire is difficult enough at the best of times, but even harder when your audience (ie you) is a dolt.

Nah.  There was  no satire.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7^th, 2016 at 11:44pm:

greggerypeccary wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 11:02pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:57pm: Dnarever wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:52pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 10:47pm: cods is massively obsessed with Shorten. Cods, will you be voting Shorten given you can't vote Liberals? I can not recall her ever referring the Shorten at all. The guy she is obsessed with is called Shortarse, easy to get them confused.. I'm just looking forward to seeing her vote for Labor, because she cannot vote Liberals.  It'll go against her tirade of the past 4 months since poor Tony got kicked out so viciously by Malcolm Turnbull. She doesn't understand how our voting system works, so she's decided not to vote at all. She's going to get her name crossed out at the polling booth, and then scribble "Shortarse sucks" on her ballot paper. What a disgrace. So then if she is going to donkey that means her entire opinion doesn't matter. Cods, come back in 2019.

She's not even going to do a donkey vote.

She's just going to scribble on the paper (informal vote).

*Just to clarify: a donkey vote is one where the voter starts with 1 at the top and then numbers each box in sequence down the paper.

1
2
3
4
5
6

You're right, though: her opinion doesn't matter.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:12am:

mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context.

100% incorrect.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:13am:

Aussie wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:50pm: melielongtime: Quote: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour Can you ring Jeremy Stoljar (Counsel Assisting) and Commissioner Heydon and let them know they each have been negligent in failing to conclude that Shorten engaged in illegal behaviour?  Let us know how you go. satire is difficult enough at the best of times, but even harder when your audience (ie you) is a dolt.

http://www.disdblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/backpedaling.jpg

mothra wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:35am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:12am: mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context. Just because you lack the mental agility to understand the difference, it doesn't mean there isn't one. I'll explain...  again. Illegal means there is a specific law passed bu a legislative body that makes it illegal. Unlawful means something that goes against the established law without there being a specific law enacted by a legislative body to condemn it. There are not specific laws for every wrong doing. These acts are unlawful without being illegal. Do you understand now? Or would you like the dictionary definitions?

Not this again, Mothra?  I had hoped over the past few weeks that the drugs might have filtered out of your system and you could make more sense.

Homicide is an 'unlawful killing'.  In even the dumbest of minds that means it is illegal.

---

mothra wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:35am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:12am: mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context. Just because you lack the mental agility to understand the difference, it doesn't mean there isn't one. I'll explain...  again. Illegal means there is a specific law passed bu a legislative body that makes it illegal. Unlawful means something that goes against the established law without there being a specific law enacted by a legislative body to condemn it. There are not specific laws for every wrong doing. These acts are unlawful without being illegal. Do you understand now? Or would you like the dictionary definitions?

Not this again, Mothra?  I had hoped over the past few weeks that the drugs might have filtered out of your system and you could make more sense.

Homicide is an 'unlawful killing'.  In even the dumbest of minds that means it is illegal.

---

mariacostel wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

Homicide is an 'unlawful killing'.  In even the dumbest of minds that means it is illegal.

in regards to your photo, that's only because you can't actually 'meet' yourself.

mothra wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:35am:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:12am: mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context. Just because you lack the mental agility to understand the difference, it doesn't mean there isn't one. I'll explain...  again. Illegal means there is a specific law passed bu a legislative body that makes it illegal. Unlawful means something that goes against the established law without there being a specific law enacted by a legislative body to condemn it. There are not specific laws for every wrong doing. These acts are unlawful without being illegal. Do you understand now? Or would you like the dictionary definitions?

Thats hilarious. You should have looked it up before you posted.

Quote:

unlawful ʌnˈlɔːfʊl,-f(ə)l/Submit adjective not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules. "the use of unlawful violence" synonyms:      illegal, illicit, lawbreaking, illegitimate, against the law;

mothra wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:35am:

Illegal means there is a specific law passed by a legislative body that makes it illegal. Unlawful means something that goes against the established law without there being a specific law enacted by a legislative body to condemn it.

Correct.

Something illegal is expressly proscribed by statute, and something unlawful is just not expressly authorized.

Theres more dumb in this thread than a hammer factory.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:46am:

mothra wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:35am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:12am: mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context. Just because you lack the mental agility to understand the difference, it doesn't mean there isn't one. I'll explain...  again. Illegal means there is a specific law passed bu a legislative body that makes it illegal. Unlawful means something that goes against the established law without there being a specific law enacted by a legislative body to condemn it. There are not specific laws for every wrong doing. These acts are unlawful without being illegal. Do you understand now? Or would you like the dictionary definitions? Mothra is correct, though in most cases it makes no practical difference.

Yes, she's 100% correct.

There is a difference.

Something illegal is expressly proscribed by statute, and something unlawful is just not expressly authorized.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 6:25pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:35am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:12am: mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context. Just because you lack the mental agility to understand the difference, it doesn't mean there isn't one. I'll explain...  again. Illegal means there is a specific law passed bu a legislative body that makes it illegal. Unlawful means something that goes against the established law without there being a specific law enacted by a legislative body to condemn it. There are not specific laws for every wrong doing. These acts are unlawful without being illegal. Do you understand now? Or would you like the dictionary definitions? Not this again, Mothra?  I had hoped over the past few weeks that the drugs might have filtered out of your system and you could make more sense. Homicide is an 'unlawful killing'.  In even the dumbest of minds that means it is illegal.

Not all homicide is unlawful. Self defence is not unlawful. Executions are not unlawful.

Couldn't you have worked that out for yourself?

unlawful

Line breaks: un|law¦ful
Pronunciation: /ʌnˈlɔːfʊl/  /ʌnˈlɔːf(ə)l/
Definition of unlawful in English:
adjective

Not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules:
the use of unlawful violence
they claimed the ban was unlawful


On the difference between unlawful and illegal, see illegal (usage).

illegal
See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary
Line breaks: il|legal
Pronunciation: /ɪˈliːɡ(ə)l/
Definition of illegal in English:
adjective

Contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law:
illegal drugs



http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/illegal#illegal__8

unlawful
ʌnˈlɔːfʊl,-f(ə)l/Submit
adjective
not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules.
"the use of unlawful violence"
synonyms:      illegal, illicit, lawbreaking, illegitimate, against the law;

On the difference between unlawful and illegal, see illegal (usage).

ian wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 9:16pm:

unlawful ʌnˈlɔːfʊl,-f(ə)l/Submit adjective not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules. "the use of unlawful violence" synonyms:      illegal, illicit, lawbreaking, illegitimate, against the law;

There is also a lawful use of violence. There are illegal uses of violence and legal uses of violence. It may be seen as hair splitting or pedantic but there is a subtle difference. In most or many cases, there is no difference because they may overlap with other law. Unlawful use of a motor vehicle might be a starting point.

Setanta wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 9:25pm:

ian wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 9:16pm: unlawful ʌnˈlɔːfʊl,-f(ə)l/Submit adjective not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules. "the use of unlawful violence" synonyms:      illegal, illicit, lawbreaking, illegitimate, against the law; There is also a lawful use of violence. There are illegal uses of violence and legal uses of violence. It may be seen as hair splitting or pedantic but there is a subtle difference. In most or many cases, there is no difference because they may overlap with other law. Unlawful use of a motor vehicle might be a starting point.

Give that man a cigar

ian wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 9:16pm:

unlawful ʌnˈlɔːfʊl,-f(ə)l/Submit adjective not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules. "the use of unlawful violence" synonyms:      illegal, illicit, lawbreaking, illegitimate, against the law;

You disagreeing with the Oxford dictionary now, fool?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 6:26pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:35am: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:12am: mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context. Just because you lack the mental agility to understand the difference, it doesn't mean there isn't one. I'll explain...  again. Illegal means there is a specific law passed bu a legislative body that makes it illegal. Unlawful means something that goes against the established law without there being a specific law enacted by a legislative body to condemn it. There are not specific laws for every wrong doing. These acts are unlawful without being illegal. Do you understand now? Or would you like the dictionary definitions? Not this again, Mothra?  I had hoped over the past few weeks that the drugs might have filtered out of your system and you could make more sense. Homicide is an 'unlawful killing'.  In even the dumbest of minds that means it is illegal.

Wow longie you're an idiot.  Homicide is to kill somebody, but you don't actually get arrested for homicide.  You get arrested for murder, or perhaps manslaughter - why? Because
Murder/manslaughter are illegal acts.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 11:26pm:

ian wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 9:16pm: unlawful ʌnˈlɔːfʊl,-f(ə)l/Submit adjective not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules. "the use of unlawful violence" synonyms:      illegal, illicit, lawbreaking, illegitimate, against the law; You disagreeing with the Oxford dictionary now, fool?

the Oxford English dictionary agrees that Illegal is a synonym of unlawful. No need to sign your posts at the end, we are quite aware of who you are.

ian wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 11:50pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 11:26pm: ian wrote on Jan 9th, 2016 at 9:16pm: unlawful ʌnˈlɔːfʊl,-f(ə)l/Submit adjective not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules. "the use of unlawful violence" synonyms:      illegal, illicit, lawbreaking, illegitimate, against the law; You disagreeing with the Oxford dictionary now, fool? the Oxford English dictionary agrees that Illegal is a synonym of unlawful. No need to sign your posts at the end, we are quite aware of who you are.

Fool


Quote:

Illegal and unlawful have slightly different meanings, although they are often used interchangeably. Something that is illegal is against the law, whereas an unlawful act merely contravenes the rules that apply in a particular context. Thus handball in soccer is unlawful, but it is not illegal. A third word with a similar meaning is illicit: this tends to encompass things that are forbidden or disapproved of by custom or society, as in an illicit love affair.

From Oxford dictionary.

Go hide under your rock until the next time, when undoubtedly you'll
Pretend you weren't schooled each and every other time.

awww.. Alevine is having his period and doesnt realise he just posted in support of my argument because he didnt read it carefully enough.

ian wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:00am:

awww.. Alevine is having his period and doesnt realise he just posted in support of my argument because he didnt read it carefully enough.

Awe looks like the fool is once again going to try and construe words in order to avoid looking more foolish.

It's always the same song with you. Quite pathetic, really.

'construe words" Lol. Way to illustrate your command of the English language. Time to change your tampon, I think toxic shock syndrome has set in..

ian wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:11am:

'construe words" Lol. Way to illustrate your command of the English language. Time to change your tampon, I think toxic shock syndrome has set in..

;D says the fool who for the better part of 3 years has done the same routine of claiming two words are identical in meaning, being shown to be wrong, escapes under a rock, then comes back and pretends he was never schooled.

So tell me, fool, how did I misunderstand your stupendous argument?

I didnt claim the 2 words were identical in meaning. Those hormones are giving you hallucinations.

ian wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:24am:

I didnt claim the 2 words were identical in meaning. Those hormones are giving you hallucinations.

Good retreating.  Now go hide under your rock, fool.

Your inferiority complex is showing. I told you, no need to sign your name after every post.

ian wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:27am:

Your inferiority complex is showing. I told you, no need to sign your name after every post.

The next time this debate appears, can you do us all a favour and just do the same cycle in your own little head, fool?

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:30am:

ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:27am: Your inferiority complex is showing. I told you, no need to sign your name after every post. The next time this debate appears, can you do us all a favour and just do the same cycle in your own little head, fool?

No cycles, please. Ian refuses to travel in a rickshaw. He believes it makes him look uncouth.

When in Paharganj, Ian travels in one of those three-wheeler things.

ian wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:24am:

I didnt claim the 2 words were identical in meaning. Those hormones are giving you hallucinations.

Well hallelujah. What exactly are you arguing about then?

mothra wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 6:20am:

ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:24am: I didnt claim the 2 words were identical in meaning. Those hormones are giving you hallucinations. Well hallelujah. What exactly are you arguing about then?

He doesn't know how. It's his typical cycle: argue against, be shown he is wrong, pretend he never argued against, run away, wait until next time and pretend nothing ever happened.

Good find with Oxford dictionary illegal vs unlawful btw!  Normal people would typically agree with the opinion of the Oxford dictionary on the English language. It's unfortunate we deal with these nutters.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 6:26am:

mothra wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 6:20am: ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:24am: I didnt claim the 2 words were identical in meaning. Those hormones are giving you hallucinations. Well hallelujah. What exactly are you arguing about then? He doesn't know how. It's his typical cycle: argue against, be shown he is wrong, pretend he never argued against, run away, wait until next time and pretend nothing ever happened. Good find with Oxford dictionary illegal vs unlawful btw!  Normal people would typically agree with the opinion of the Oxford dictionary on the English language. It's unfortunate we deal with these nutters.

Yeah. How can you argue with the Oxford dictionary? It beggars belief.

mothra wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 6:39am:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 6:26am: mothra wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 6:20am: ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:24am: I didnt claim the 2 words were identical in meaning. Those hormones are giving you hallucinations. Well hallelujah. What exactly are you arguing about then? He doesn't know how. It's his typical cycle: argue against, be shown he is wrong, pretend he never argued against, run away, wait until next time and pretend nothing ever happened. Good find with Oxford dictionary illegal vs unlawful btw!  Normal people would typically agree with the opinion of the Oxford dictionary on the English language. It's unfortunate we deal with these nutters. Yeah. How can you argue with the Oxford dictionary? It beggars belief.

ask Ian. 

ian wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:24am:

I didnt claim the 2 words were identical in meaning. Those hormones are giving you hallucinations.

But you did claim that statements that were correct were not correct based on that belief.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 6:26am:

mothra wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 6:20am: ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:24am: I didnt claim the 2 words were identical in meaning. Those hormones are giving you hallucinations. Well hallelujah. What exactly are you arguing about then? He doesn't know how. It's his typical cycle: argue against, be shown he is wrong, pretend he never argued against, run away, wait until next time and pretend nothing ever happened.

Yep, that's ian.

You've described him beautifully.

This is an interesting question in reality if it is even true that he is unpopular. To claim he is unpopular I would guess we refer to popularity polls for preferred PM which in a way is fair enough.

The interesting aspect is that in comparison if you look at the corresponding topic asking the same of Abbott you see concreate factual reason after reason listed to drive the result but when you look at this topic all you get is wishy washy garbage. There has been no reason with substance given.

That is mostly because there is in reality no reason. This make you wonder what it really means in itself, does it mean that it could quickly turn around (or not).

The two person option means that if one is popular the other can't be, does this reflect reality ? What happens as the Turnbull popularity invariably diminishes the vote can go no place other than to Shorten ?

Turnbull's numbers being unsustainably high means that Shortens is unsustainably Low. What happens if Turnbull tries to release another failed budget ? What happens if Turnbull tries to electioneer on increasing the GST or cutting back health and education etc ?

How can Turnbull not campaign on cutting back health and education considering that they have spent three years doing just that when the promised not to ?

How can the Liberals go to the next election with any credibility considering they have set a lying record this term ?

How can all this not result in Shorten's popularity rating being drastically improved by the next election ?

mothra wrote on Jan 9^th, 2016 at 9:09pm:

unlawful Line breaks: un|law¦ful Pronunciation: /ʌnˈlɔːfʊl/  /ʌnˈlɔːf(ə)l/ Definition of unlawful in English: adjective Not conforming to, permitted by, or recognized by law or rules: the use of unlawful violence they claimed the ban was unlawful On the difference between unlawful and illegal, see illegal (usage). illegal See definition in Oxford Advanced Learner's Dictionary Line breaks: il|legal Pronunciation: /ɪˈliːɡ(ə)l/ Definition of illegal in English: adjective Contrary to or forbidden by law, especially criminal law: illegal drugs http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/illegal#illegal__8

Oh mothra... the last few weeks have not made you any smarter.  You literally quoted two definitions  that are virtually word-for-word identical. But no... peccahead has spoken and you are therefore drawn to agree with him, no matter how dumb the statement is.

Do you even know what 'synonym' means? I could quote a dictionary definition, but the above proves that would be a worthless exercise.

On the difference between unlawful and illegal, see illegal (usage).

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:19am:

ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:11am: 'construe words" Lol. Way to illustrate your command of the English language. Time to change your tampon, I think toxic shock syndrome has set in.. ;D says the fool who for the better part of 3 years has done the same routine of claiming two words are identical in meaning, being shown to be wrong, escapes under a rock, then comes back and pretends he was never schooled. So tell me, fool, how did I misunderstand your stupendous argument?

When the Oxford Dictionary tells you the two words are synonymous, who the hell do you think YOU are to disagree?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:27pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:19am: ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:11am: 'construe words" Lol. Way to illustrate your command of the English language. Time to change your tampon, I think toxic shock syndrome has set in.. ;D says the fool who for the better part of 3 years has done the same routine of claiming two words are identical in meaning, being shown to be wrong, escapes under a rock, then comes back and pretends he was never schooled. So tell me, fool, how did I misunderstand your stupendous argument? When the Oxford Dictionary tells you the two words are synonymous, who the hell do you think YOU are to disagree?

From, the Oxford Dictionary:


On the difference between unlawful and illegal, see illegal (usage).

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:27pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:19am: ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:11am: 'construe words" Lol. Way to illustrate your command of the English language. Time to change your tampon, I think toxic shock syndrome has set in.. ;D says the fool who for the better part of 3 years has done the same routine of claiming two words are identical in meaning, being shown to be wrong, escapes under a rock, then comes back and pretends he was never schooled. So tell me, fool, how did I misunderstand your stupendous argument? When the Oxford Dictionary tells you the two words are synonymous, who the hell do you think YOU are to disagree?

I dont.  But i recognise that legally they have different meanings, and i think youll find no lawyers would use them synonymously.  Stick to pretending to write childrens books longie.

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:12am:

mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context.

Do you have an example of a 65% synonym ?

Do you even know what a synonym is ?

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 12:27pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:19am: ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:11am: 'construe words" Lol. Way to illustrate your command of the English language. Time to change your tampon, I think toxic shock syndrome has set in.. ;D says the fool who for the better part of 3 years has done the same routine of claiming two words are identical in meaning, being shown to be wrong, escapes under a rock, then comes back and pretends he was never schooled. So tell me, fool, how did I misunderstand your stupendous argument? When the Oxford Dictionary tells you the two words are synonymous, who the hell do you think YOU are to disagree?

You do understand that synonyms do not necessarily have the exact same meaning ?

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8^th, 2016 at 8:12am:

mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context.

No this is not correct. There are many things that are unlawful that are not illegal.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 1:32pm:

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:27pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:19am: ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:11am: 'construe words" Lol. Way to illustrate your command of the English language. Time to change your tampon, I think toxic shock syndrome has set in.. ;D says the fool who for the better part of 3 years has done the same routine of claiming two words are identical in meaning, being shown to be wrong, escapes under a rock, then comes back and pretends he was never schooled. So tell me, fool, how did I misunderstand your stupendous argument? When the Oxford Dictionary tells you the two words are synonymous, who the hell do you think YOU are to disagree? I dont.  But i recognise that legally they have different meanings, and i think youll find no lawyers would use them synonymously.  Stick to pretending to write childrens books longie.

Nonsense. Because the terms are 100% synonymous, they are used interchangeably and I defy you to find an Australian lawyer that would say differently.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 1:48pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:12am: mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context. No this is not correct. There are many things that are unlawful that are not illegal.

NAME THREE SUCH THINGS.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 7:42am:

ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:24am: I didnt claim the 2 words were identical in meaning. Those hormones are giving you hallucinations. But you did claim that statements that were correct were not correct based on that belief.

Nope. The difficulty you and others are having here is recognising the difference between the way the words are commonly used and the dictionary  definition of them. The words are not identical in meaning, however they are used interchangably to mean the same thing in common usage, including in a court of law. This is the problem with people like Alevine who can only argue from a position of knowing how to google rather than any actual existing knowledge and logical extrapolation of that knowledge. It invariably becomes an argument of semantics, this is how Greggary and others  think they win debates here. They never win, because they never learn when they are wrong, they bog the simplest debate such as this so far down in semantics to prop up their infantile egos that actual knowledge can never enter their bubbles. Anyone who has spent any time in a court of law knows from experience that the 2 words are used to mean the same thing.

ian wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:50pm:

however they are used interchangably to mean the same thing in common usage, including in a court of law.

Incorrect.

ian wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:50pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 7:42am: ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:24am: I didnt claim the 2 words were identical in meaning. Those hormones are giving you hallucinations. But you did claim that statements that were correct were not correct based on that belief. Nope. The difficulty you and others are having here is recognising the difference between the way the words are commonly used and the dictionary  definition of them. The words are not identical in meaning, however they are used interchangably to mean the same thing in common usage, including in a court of law. This is the problem with people like Alevine who can only argue from a position of knowing how to google rather than any actual existing knowledge and logical extrapolation of that knowledge. It invariably becomes an argument of semantics, this is how Greggary and others  think they win debates here. They never win, because they never learn when they are wrong, they bog the simplest debate such as this so far down in semantics to prop up their infantile egos that actual knowledge can never enter their bubbles. Anyone who has spent any time in a court of law knows from experience that the 2 words are used to mean the same thing.

Yet...at post #105 up there, you said...


Quote:

I didnt claim the 2 words were identical in meaning.

Seems to me you are having two bob each way.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:11pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 1:48pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 8th, 2016 at 8:12am: mothra wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:35pm: longweekend58 wrote on Jan 7th, 2016 at 5:24pm: but he DID engage in illegal behaviour. AFter all, you are the prize goose who thinks unlawful and illegal have different meanings. They do. This has been explained to you before. i remember the tortured and ultimately failed explanations.  quite simply the two words are 100% synonyms in any context. No this is not correct. There are many things that are unlawful that are not illegal. NAME THREE SUCH THINGS.

1. Littering

2. Eating on public transport

3. Adultery

4. Jaywalking

5. Arriving in Australia by boat without a VISA

Deporting country shoppers.

the good ole boys wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 6:43pm:

Deporting country shoppers.

Hush now, the grown-ups are talking.

mothra wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 6:48pm:

the good ole boys wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 6:43pm: Deporting country shoppers. Hush now, the grown-ups are talking.

piss off you ugly bitch.

the good ole boys wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 6:50pm:

mothra wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 6:48pm: the good ole boys wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 6:43pm: Deporting country shoppers. Hush now, the grown-ups are talking. piss off you ugly bitch.

Another man on this forum who thinks calling me sexually undesirable is the way to win an argument.

All class.

mothra wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 6:54pm:

the good ole boys wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 6:50pm: mothra wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 6:48pm: the good ole boys wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 6:43pm: Deporting country shoppers. Hush now, the grown-ups are talking. piss off you ugly bitch. Another man on this forum who thinks.

I've seen no evidence to suggest that.

Quote:

CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 408A 408A Unlawful use or possession of motor vehicles, aircraft or vessels (1) A person who— (a) unlawfully uses any motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel without the consent of the person in lawful possession thereof; or (b) has in the person's possession any motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel without the consent of the person in lawful possession thereof with intent to deprive the owner or person in lawful possession thereof of the use and possession thereof either temporarily or permanently; is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years.

It is unlawful and because it is proscribed by law, illegal, guilty of a crime.

On the other hand...

It's unlawful to cross our borders without a visa and may be illegal unless for example you are claiming asylum, which is legal.

mariacostel wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:11pm:

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 1:32pm: mariacostel wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:27pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:19am: ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:11am: 'construe words" Lol. Way to illustrate your command of the English language. Time to change your tampon, I think toxic shock syndrome has set in.. ;D says the fool who for the better part of 3 years has done the same routine of claiming two words are identical in meaning, being shown to be wrong, escapes under a rock, then comes back and pretends he was never schooled. So tell me, fool, how did I misunderstand your stupendous argument? When the Oxford Dictionary tells you the two words are synonymous, who the hell do you think YOU are to disagree? I dont.  But i recognise that legally they have different meanings, and i think youll find no lawyers would use them synonymously.  Stick to pretending to write childrens books longie. Nonsense. Because the terms are 100% synonymous, they are used interchangeably and I defy you to find an Australian lawyer that would say differently.

So far I've got my family member barrister, their 30 odd chamber colleagues, my best mate lawyer, his 300 odd firm colleagues,, and my other 10 mates who are lawyers, and their colleagues.

You have what?  Your own belief based on nothing?

ian wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 5:50pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 7:42am: ian wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 12:24am: I didnt claim the 2 words were identical in meaning. Those hormones are giving you hallucinations. But you did claim that statements that were correct were not correct based on that belief. Nope. The difficulty you and others are having here is recognising the difference between the way the words are commonly used and the dictionary  definition of them. The words are not identical in meaning, however they are used interchangably to mean the same thing in common usage, including in a court of law. This is the problem with people like Alevine who can only argue from a position of knowing how to google rather than any actual existing knowledge and logical extrapolation of that knowledge. It invariably becomes an argument of semantics, this is how Greggary and others  think they win debates here. They never win, because they never learn when they are wrong, they bog the simplest debate such as this so far down in semantics to prop up their infantile egos that actual knowledge can never enter their bubbles. Anyone who has spent any time in a court of law knows from experience that the 2 words are used to mean the same thing.

Going to a magistrate court to defend yourself against a driving violation (probably for driving on the walking strip because you're an idiot) hardly gives you credibility to decide whether in law unlawful and illegal mean the same thing.  They don't, and barristers,and judges, don't use them interchangeably, because they know they carry different meanings when it comes to the law, fool. Words and meaning of words is very important, especially in a court of law. If you have a barrister who uses illegal and unlawful interchangeable then change barristers.

Setanta wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 8:21pm:

Quote: CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 408A 408A Unlawful use or possession of motor vehicles, aircraft or vessels (1) A person who— (a) unlawfully uses any motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel without the consent of the person in lawful possession thereof; or (b) has in the person's possession any motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel without the consent of the person in lawful possession thereof with intent to deprive the owner or person in lawful possession thereof of the use and possession thereof either temporarily or permanently; is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years. It is unlawful and because it is proscribed by law, illegal, guilty of a crime. On the other hand... It's unlawful to cross our borders without a visa and may be illegal unless for example you are claiming asylum, which is legal.

Setanta, I would not be too eager to rely on the expressions used in criminal codes around the Country.  All I can do is tell you about the Queensland position which is ~ the Code actually describes what is meant by the term unlawfully ~ 'authorised, justified or excused by Law,' ..... that's from memory.  If there is a challenge, I'll go check.

Aussie wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:10pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 8:21pm: Quote: CRIMINAL CODE - SECT 408A 408A Unlawful use or possession of motor vehicles, aircraft or vessels (1) A person who— (a) unlawfully uses any motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel without the consent of the person in lawful possession thereof; or (b) has in the person's possession any motor vehicle, aircraft or vessel without the consent of the person in lawful possession thereof with intent to deprive the owner or person in lawful possession thereof of the use and possession thereof either temporarily or permanently; is guilty of a crime and is liable to imprisonment for 7 years. It is unlawful and because it is proscribed by law, illegal, guilty of a crime. On the other hand... It's unlawful to cross our borders without a visa and may be illegal unless for example you are claiming asylum, which is legal. Setanta, I would not be too eager to rely on the expressions used in criminal codes around the Country.  All I can do is tell you about the Queensland position which is ~ the Code actually describes what is meant by the term unlawfully ~ 'authorised, justified or excused by Law,' ..... that's from memory.  If there is a challenge, I'll go check.

many blessings

there are those amongst you that are great repeaters

these ones push out their chest at being the best repeater on the block ..

which evidently only serves the 2 party system and

blacks law statutory law ..

these are quite important it would appear

the ego does its dance

carry on regardless

namaste

Aussie wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:10pm:

Setanta, I would not be too eager to rely on the expressions used in criminal codes around the Country.  All I can do is tell you about the Queensland position which is ~ the Code actually describes what is meant by the term unlawfully ~ 'authorised, justified or excused by Law,' ..... that's from memory.  If there is a challenge, I'll go check.

All well and good but something unlawful can also be legal but most of the time if it's unlawful, it's also illegal. Yes I understand there is a subtle difference, I also understand in most cases if it's unlawful, it's also illegal. In most cases but not all they are synonymous.

I'm not sure which side I'm falling on here as both are being beligerent rather than seeking a reasonable resolution and understanding.

Setanta wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 9:23pm:

Aussie wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:10pm: Setanta, I would not be too eager to rely on the expressions used in criminal codes around the Country.  All I can do is tell you about the Queensland position which is ~ the Code actually describes what is meant by the term unlawfully ~ 'authorised, justified or excused by Law,' ..... that's from memory.  If there is a challenge, I'll go check. All well and good but something unlawful can also be legal but most of the time if it's unlawful, it's also illegal. Yes I understand there is a subtle difference, I also understand in most cases if it's unlawful, it's also illegal. In most cases but not all they are synonymous. I'm not sure which side I'm falling on here as both are being beligerent rather than seeking a reasonable resolution and understanding.

I don't see how you can claim to be Sweden when you just put out a definition that clearly falls on one side.

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 11:34pm:

Setanta wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:23pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:10pm: Setanta, I would not be too eager to rely on the expressions used in criminal codes around the Country.  All I can do is tell you about the Queensland position which is ~ the Code actually describes what is meant by the term unlawfully ~ 'authorised, justified or excused by Law,' ..... that's from memory.  If there is a challenge, I'll go check. All well and good but something unlawful can also be legal but most of the time if it's unlawful, it's also illegal. Yes I understand there is a subtle difference, I also understand in most cases if it's unlawful, it's also illegal. In most cases but not all they are synonymous. I'm not sure which side I'm falling on here as both are being beligerent rather than seeking a reasonable resolution and understanding. I don't see how you can claim to be Sweden when you just put out a definition that clearly falls on one side.

I suppose that's fair. There is a difference, except when there's not or there is no difference except when there is.  :-/

Setanta wrote on Jan 10^th, 2016 at 11:49pm:

Dnarever wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 11:34pm: Setanta wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:23pm: Aussie wrote on Jan 10th, 2016 at 9:10pm: Setanta, I would not be too eager to rely on the expressions used in criminal codes around the Country.  All I can do is tell you about the Queensland position which is ~ the Code actually describes what is meant by the term unlawfully ~ 'authorised, justified or excused by Law,' ..... that's from memory.  If there is a challenge, I'll go check. All well and good but something unlawful can also be legal but most of the time if it's unlawful, it's also illegal. Yes I understand there is a subtle difference, I also understand in most cases if it's unlawful, it's also illegal. In most cases but not all they are synonymous. I'm not sure which side I'm falling on here as both are being beligerent rather than seeking a reasonable resolution and understanding. I don't see how you can claim to be Sweden when you just put out a definition that clearly falls on one side. I suppose that's fair. There is a difference, except when there's not or there is no difference except when there is.  :-/

Read Machiavelli's "The Prince" (again - I think you may have) - what good is a settled and established system for all unless you can make exceptions at the drop of a hat on a purely arbitrary basis?  How would you cow the populace if everything was above board and simple and honest?