This question has never really been answered by the Coalition or their supporters, so I would really appreciate a straightforward, no beating around the bush answer. If the Coalition knew about Slipper's behaviour, then why was he pre-selected 9 times? I have heard that they knew that he was dodgy since about 2003, so then, why was he pre-selected in 2004, 2007 and 2010? Why was he not disendorsed until 2011?

I don't know.
It's pretty poor, isn't it ?

TheGreenLight wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:05pm:

This question has never really been answered by the Coalition or their supporters, so I would really appreciate a straightforward, no beating around the bush answer. If the Coalition knew about Slipper's behaviour, then why was he pre-selected 9 times? I have heard that they knew that he was dodgy since about 2003, so then, why was he pre-selected in 2004, 2007 and 2010? Why was he not disendorsed until 2011?

These are all problems relating to globalists, (Neo cons and neo libs) not conservatives nor the traditional left. :) :) :) :)

TheGreenLight wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:05pm:

This question has never really been answered by the Coalition or their supporters, so I would really appreciate a straightforward, no beating around the bush answer. If the Coalition knew about Slipper's behaviour, then why was he pre-selected 9 times? I have heard that they knew that he was dodgy since about 2003, so then, why was he pre-selected in 2004, 2007 and 2010? Why was he not disendorsed until 2011?

I think when you can explain how Thomson was preselected multiple times while being known as a whoring, embezzling scumbag who took secret commissions then you might get someone to bother answering you.

in the meantime, you just look like a hypocrite.

longweekend58 wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:34pm:

TheGreenLight wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:05pm: This question has never really been answered by the Coalition or their supporters, so I would really appreciate a straightforward, no beating around the bush answer. If the Coalition knew about Slipper's behaviour, then why was he pre-selected 9 times? I have heard that they knew that he was dodgy since about 2003, so then, why was he pre-selected in 2004, 2007 and 2010? Why was he not disendorsed until 2011? I think when you can explain how Thomson was preselected multiple times while being known as a whoring, embezzling scumbag who took secret commissions then you might get someone to bother answering you. in the meantime, you just look like a hypocrite.

So in your pathetic opinion you can justify any action by finding allegations against your opponent and dismissing any concerns as hypocrisy.....Take a look at yourself in the mirror mate!!!

::) ::) ::)

longweekend58 wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:34pm:

TheGreenLight wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:05pm: This question has never really been answered by the Coalition or their supporters, so I would really appreciate a straightforward, no beating around the bush answer. If the Coalition knew about Slipper's behaviour, then why was he pre-selected 9 times? I have heard that they knew that he was dodgy since about 2003, so then, why was he pre-selected in 2004, 2007 and 2010? Why was he not disendorsed until 2011? I think when you can explain how Thomson was preselected multiple times while being known as a whoring, embezzling scumbag who took secret commissions then you might get someone to bother answering you. in the meantime, you just look like a hypocrite.

He was only actually preselected twice, and I have said the same of him as I have of Slipper. The only one being hypocritical is you. No answer? Can't justify why the Coalition preselected him?

philperth2010 wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 5:57pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:34pm: TheGreenLight wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:05pm: This question has never really been answered by the Coalition or their supporters, so I would really appreciate a straightforward, no beating around the bush answer. If the Coalition knew about Slipper's behaviour, then why was he pre-selected 9 times? I have heard that they knew that he was dodgy since about 2003, so then, why was he pre-selected in 2004, 2007 and 2010? Why was he not disendorsed until 2011? I think when you can explain how Thomson was preselected multiple times while being known as a whoring, embezzling scumbag who took secret commissions then you might get someone to bother answering you. in the meantime, you just look like a hypocrite. So in your pathetic opinion you can justify any action by finding allegations against your opponent and dismissing any concerns as hypocrisy.....Take a look at yourself in the mirror mate!!! ::) ::) ::)

well you dont seem to care about Thomson's crimes so I might as well. Now if he was a Lib you'd be screaming for his jailing.

Yes. Hypocrite fits you quite well.

longweekend58 wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 6:39pm:

philperth2010 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:34pm: TheGreenLight wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:05pm: This question has never really been answered by the Coalition or their supporters, so I would really appreciate a straightforward, no beating around the bush answer. If the Coalition knew about Slipper's behaviour, then why was he pre-selected 9 times? I have heard that they knew that he was dodgy since about 2003, so then, why was he pre-selected in 2004, 2007 and 2010? Why was he not disendorsed until 2011? I think when you can explain how Thomson was preselected multiple times while being known as a whoring, embezzling scumbag who took secret commissions then you might get someone to bother answering you. in the meantime, you just look like a hypocrite. So in your pathetic opinion you can justify any action by finding allegations against your opponent and dismissing any concerns as hypocrisy.....Take a look at yourself in the mirror mate!!! ::) ::) ::) well you dont seem to care about Thomson's crimes so I might as well. Now if he was a Lib you'd be screaming for his jailing. Yes. Hypocrite fits you quite well.

When was Thomson convicted of any crimes?

There are no true scotsmen

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 6:41pm:

There are no true scotsmen SOB

Sean Connery?

longweekend58 wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 6:39pm:

philperth2010 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:34pm: TheGreenLight wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:05pm: This question has never really been answered by the Coalition or their supporters, so I would really appreciate a straightforward, no beating around the bush answer. If the Coalition knew about Slipper's behaviour, then why was he pre-selected 9 times? I have heard that they knew that he was dodgy since about 2003, so then, why was he pre-selected in 2004, 2007 and 2010? Why was he not disendorsed until 2011? I think when you can explain how Thomson was preselected multiple times while being known as a whoring, embezzling scumbag who took secret commissions then you might get someone to bother answering you. in the meantime, you just look like a hypocrite. So in your pathetic opinion you can justify any action by finding allegations against your opponent and dismissing any concerns as hypocrisy.....Take a look at yourself in the mirror mate!!! ::) ::) ::) well you dont seem to care about Thomson's crimes so I might as well. Now if he was a Lib you'd be screaming for his jailing. Yes. Hypocrite fits you quite well.

Two wrongs don't make a right. You don't seem to understand, no one is defending Thomson. We're just asking why the Coalition preselected Slipper so many times, if they knew that he was dodgy from circa 2003? Yes, the same case can, and by myself, has been, said. Again, two wrongs don't make a right, and no one has defended Thomson.

adelcrow wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 6:41pm:

longweekend58 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 6:39pm: philperth2010 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:34pm: TheGreenLight wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:05pm: This question has never really been answered by the Coalition or their supporters, so I would really appreciate a straightforward, no beating around the bush answer. If the Coalition knew about Slipper's behaviour, then why was he pre-selected 9 times? I have heard that they knew that he was dodgy since about 2003, so then, why was he pre-selected in 2004, 2007 and 2010? Why was he not disendorsed until 2011? I think when you can explain how Thomson was preselected multiple times while being known as a whoring, embezzling scumbag who took secret commissions then you might get someone to bother answering you. in the meantime, you just look like a hypocrite. So in your pathetic opinion you can justify any action by finding allegations against your opponent and dismissing any concerns as hypocrisy.....Take a look at yourself in the mirror mate!!! ::) ::) ::) well you dont seem to care about Thomson's crimes so I might as well. Now if he was a Lib you'd be screaming for his jailing. Yes. Hypocrite fits you quite well. When was Thomson convicted of any crimes?

look to the future (your words).

longweekend58 wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 6:53pm:

adelcrow wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 6:41pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 6:39pm: philperth2010 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:57pm: longweekend58 wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:34pm: TheGreenLight wrote on May 5th, 2012 at 5:05pm: This question has never really been answered by the Coalition or their supporters, so I would really appreciate a straightforward, no beating around the bush answer. If the Coalition knew about Slipper's behaviour, then why was he pre-selected 9 times? I have heard that they knew that he was dodgy since about 2003, so then, why was he pre-selected in 2004, 2007 and 2010? Why was he not disendorsed until 2011? I think when you can explain how Thomson was preselected multiple times while being known as a whoring, embezzling scumbag who took secret commissions then you might get someone to bother answering you. in the meantime, you just look like a hypocrite. So in your pathetic opinion you can justify any action by finding allegations against your opponent and dismissing any concerns as hypocrisy.....Take a look at yourself in the mirror mate!!! ::) ::) ::) well you dont seem to care about Thomson's crimes so I might as well. Now if he was a Lib you'd be screaming for his jailing. Yes. Hypocrite fits you quite well. When was Thomson convicted of any crimes? look to the future (your words).

and wise words they are

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 6:41pm:

There are no true scotsmen

My father was....

The answer to your question is rather simple. Slipper was a  "protected species" within the Liberal party due to his symbiotic relationship with the Queensland Liberal party factional boss Santo Santoro.


Quote:

Former Howard government advisers and senior Liberal Party figures have told The Sun-Herald Mr Santoro's factional support for Mr Slipper protected him from being disendorsed. ''There was definitely a concern [about Mr Slipper] but he was entrenched,'' a former senior adviser in Mr Howard's prime ministerial office said. ''If you'd been able to move him on, you would [have], but you weren't able to. He had the numbers.'' A senior figure within the Queensland party concurred: ''He was very much a protected species … [Mr Santoro's faction] would use their influence to look after him. They did that for their own self-interest. It was a symbiotic relationship with Santo.'' Sources said Mr Slipper would marshal members of his electorate to back candidates favoured by Mr Santoro for party positions and preselections. John Howard attempted to rein in Mr Slipper's behaviour by appointing him his personal parliamentary secretary in March 2002. ''Howard wanted to keep a close eye on him,'' another former senior adviser to the Howard government said.

Slipper remained in parliament because it would have been politically inconvenient to disendorse him.

MOTR wrote on May 5^th, 2012 at 7:11pm:

The answer to your question is rather simple. Slipper was a  "protected species" within the Liberal party due to his symbiotic relationship with the Queensland Liberal party factional boss Santo Santoro. Quote: Former Howard government advisers and senior Liberal Party figures have told The Sun-Herald Mr Santoro's factional support for Mr Slipper protected him from being disendorsed. ''There was definitely a concern [about Mr Slipper] but he was entrenched,'' a former senior adviser in Mr Howard's prime ministerial office said. ''If you'd been able to move him on, you would [have], but you weren't able to. He had the numbers.'' A senior figure within the Queensland party concurred: ''He was very much a protected species … [Mr Santoro's faction] would use their influence to look after him. They did that for their own self-interest. It was a symbiotic relationship with Santo.'' Sources said Mr Slipper would marshal members of his electorate to back candidates favoured by Mr Santoro for party positions and preselections. John Howard attempted to rein in Mr Slipper's behaviour by appointing him his personal parliamentary secretary in March 2002. ''Howard wanted to keep a close eye on him,'' another former senior adviser to the Howard government said. Slipper remained in parliament because it would have been politically inconvenient to disendorse him.

so they are hypocrites ... how nice to have it confirmed .. again

Hmmmm - the faceless men of the Liberal Party then?

Good question Green Person. Our system is designed to protect the rich, well connected, national treasures, powerful, and other identities.

Note the lack of enthusiasm to kick Kirby off the high court bench; the lack of action to prosecute the judge who hung around the crappers at Wynyard and other railway stations; the path cleared for one of our biggest drug dealers to flee overseas; the reluctance to bring alleged judge Einfeld to book; the promotion to the high court bench of alleged judge Murphy and then the lack of action to prosecute him. These and other notorious cases make you go mmmmmmmmmm.


It's a bit late to be disturbed by the Slipper affair don't you think?

salad in wrote on May 6^th, 2012 at 8:38am:

Good question Green Person. Our system is designed to protect the rich, well connected, national treasures, powerful, and other identities. Note the lack of enthusiasm to kick Kirby off the high court bench; the lack of action to prosecute the judge who hung around the crappers at Wynyard and other railway stations; the path cleared for one of our biggest drug dealers to flee overseas; the reluctance to bring alleged judge Einfeld to book; the promotion to the high court bench of alleged judge Murphy and then the lack of action to prosecute him. These and other notorious cases make you go mmmmmmmmmm. It's a bit late to be disturbed by the Slipper affair don't you think?

Thanks Saladin for your fine input. Do you mean stuff like this:


Quote:

Australian Judge David Yeldham - The suicide of Justice David Yeldham after his secret life had been revealed Wed, 05/28/2008 - 22:22 — Arthur Cristian Australian Judge David Yeldham Broadcast: 17/02/97 Courting Disaster The suicide of Justice David Yeldham after his secret life had been revealed scandalized the judiciary. There is evidence that the highest judicial officers in the state were made aware of his behavior in the late 1980s but failed to take effective action. His practices, in the eyes of Sir Laurence Street, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, made him unfit to hold his office. Original Story. [...] http://loveforlife.com.au/content/08/05/28/australian-judge-david-yeldham-suicide-justice-david-yeldham-after-his-secret-life-

Yes Saladin, that's exactly what I mean. I love this part...There is evidence that the highest judicial officers in the state were made aware of his behavior in the late 1980s but failed to take effective action. That's how the system works.

For the same reason Gillard supported him (and Thompson), political expediency.

It isn’t that hard.

You don’t really think one side has moral superiority over the other do you?