|
progressiveslol
|
sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 8:13pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 8:12pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 8:11pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 8:06pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 8:04pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 8:01pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 7:59pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 7:56pm: sir prince duke alevine wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 7:53pm: progressiveslol wrote on Nov 2 nd, 2012 at 7:44pm: 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? No-one has to prove guilt. The PM however needs to answer the questions put to her. Actually the state needs to prove guilt. That's how it works. Go look up how the legal system works. And I totally agree that if gillard is charged by te policy and fronts the courts than she must answer questions posed of her. The PM is suppose to answer questions and truthfully. She will not answer at all, because she knows what will happen if she does answer truthfully or more so if she does not tell the truth. I agree, the pm must answer questions posed relating to national interest and policy. Questions asked that may relate to a criminal matter are asked by police and prosecters. Not by an alleged plagiarist. Not at all. It is up to parliament to find out if our PM is lying. The documentation suggests our PM has been lying as recent as August. As usual wrong. It's the oppositions role to keep te government to account on policy matters. It's up to the state prosecters and police to raise criminal matters. You are not getting it are you. They are not asking the PM did she do something that was a crime. Bishop is asking why is the PM lying. Can the PM tell us the truth instead. That is their job, to make the PM answer questions truthfully. Any question of something of importance, not just policy. You just aren't getting it . The opposition has no role to play in being the police or prosecuters. If they think Gillard is lying in a criminal matter than they need to provide that evidence to the right authorities. There is a fraud investigation. I'm sure they would be only too happy to hear what evidence Bishop has. But the parliament is not a criminal court. And Bishop has no place to try to raise her own charges on someone. The opposition has a duty to call out the PM while in the capacity of the PM, lies to the people. If the opposition has evidence that the PM lied about a criminal matter, than they have a duty to provide that evidence to the police. That is what role they have to play. Not the role of prosecuter or judge or jury or executioner. They dont know it is criminal matter until the PM answers the questions.
|
Forum
Pages: 
If your partner suddenly starts............ (Read 5959 times)
