progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3
rd, 2012 at 8:17pm:
John S wrote on Nov 3
rd, 2012 at 8:09pm:
progressiveslol wrote on Nov 3
rd, 2012 at 7:59pm:
John S wrote on Nov 3
rd, 2012 at 7:51pm:
A little question to lolly, cods and gold_medal and any other liberal supporter that want to answer it.
The way I read things on here you all think that anything the liberals do is good and anything that labor do is bad any any links that you don't agree with is a lefty link and you don't ever read it.
Would I be right thinking that?
No, thats just a stab back at the lefties who complain about our links.
One thing that gets at me is deception. A word to deceive or to put it another way, a word that does deceive.
I put it another then lolly
Was it a good or bad thing when labor made Peter Slipper Speaker? and why do you think that way?
It was a bad thing because the current speaker seemed to be an honorable man.
All the rest go full circle to having an honorable man lose his position.
no order of relevance
It was a bad idea because
it goes against tradition.
slipper had known issues of the past
It was done to sure up a lie to an MP that gave them support through pockie reform
slipper in no way deserved such a position
it just looked so terrible for parliaments prestige and honor
Probably others, but someone can fill in.
Well I think it was a good thing that labor made Slipper Speaker.
Why, like you said Slipper had known issues of his past and the liberal party knew about them for 9 years and done nothing about them.
Yeah Abbott said he was trying to get rid of him from parliament. Why didn't Abbott get him dis-endorsed in 2010?
If he wasn't made Speaker all his known issues would still be buried in the archives of the liberal Party HQ, never to see the light of day.
Guess what it was the stupid liberal party that brought it to light because they though it would hurt the labor government.
Going on the dates those text were sent, Ashby didn't work for Slipper until after they were sent.