|
gold_medal
|
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3 rd, 2012 at 7:58am: gold_medal wrote on Nov 3 rd, 2012 at 7:52am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 3 rd, 2012 at 7:39am: gold_medal wrote on Nov 3 rd, 2012 at 7:07am: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 7:32pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 7:28pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 7:24pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 7:19pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 7:17pm: gold_medal wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 7:15pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 7:12pm: Here's a hypothetical: if you were accused of a crime, and you provided public statements and then some lunch mob continued to accuse you, would you prefer to the law maintained ur innocence and the state was in charge of proving you guilty, or you prefer to have the lynch mob inadueqetly prosecute you and execute you without evidence but just accusations? Would you rather a proper system, or someone who themselves ha previously admitted to commuting a crime? What's a lunch mob? But more importantly, what are you trying to ask as it sounds all rather confused. Maybe it was the spelling? Hav nothing so you pick on auto correct on my iPhone.  . And you're the one recently having a big teary about the level of debate here? I suggest you argue the point not the auto correct. My point was that I dont GET your point! And I understodd 'lunch mob'. it was the usually failed attempt an humour on here. The point is very simple: criminal investigations are handled by the police and the courts, not a squinty eyed opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman or the liberal lynch mob members. If there is evidence hand it to the police. Otherwise Bishop should spend question time doing the job Australians expect her to do, and for the other choir members, find something better to do than constantly raise pitchforks in the air. Well now that post is actually understandable. And when Labor does not accuse Libs of crimes (eg Abbot etc) then come back and try again. IN the meantime you either look like a hypocrite or unaware of Labors criminal element. Either way, its time to let Gillard prove her innocence or make sure that Labor doesnt make accusations either. Play hard or play fair. But dont expect the other side to play by different rules. Next... People don't have to prove their innocence it's the states job to prove guilt. And proving non guilt in any case is done in a court of law not in parliament. And when did labor accuse Abbott of a crime? seriously? assault... sexism.... sexual assault... etc etc... all from the party with some of its own former MPs still in jail on rape, drugs and child sex charges. The labor party never accuses him of assault or sexual assault. That was individual people who did that.As for sexism, not a crimInal matter. Next, goose? do you want to run with that or do I start laughing derisively now? the liberal party has never accused anyone in the labor party of anything. it has always been individuals... seriously tho, thats the kind of reponse Id expect from booby, not you. So the labor party 30 odd years ago accused abbott of sexual assault? And David Marr wrote about a woman who alleged Abbott nearly assaulted her I take it that was labor too? You're usually more intelligent than this drivel. The point is simple: dont accuse the libs of making allegations as if Labor dont do the same and worse.
|