Australian Politics Forum - Old Howard an apologist for banking scoundrels

Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register

Forum rules, Recent posts (with text), RSS, Search options, Browse all uploaded images
Home, Articles, Green Tax Shift, Evolution,

Australian Politics Forum › General Discussion › Federal Politics › Old Howard an apologist for banking scoundrels

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

Pages: 1 2

Old Howard an apologist for banking scoundrels (Read 1718 times)

Grappler Truth Teller Feller Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 80331 Proud pre-1850's NO Voter Gender:	Re: Old Howard an apologist for banking scoundrels Reply #15 - Apr 23^rd, 2018 at 12:01am Here's one for wee Johnnie and the Krew:-
Back to top	“Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence.” ― John Adams IP Logged

Frank

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 40675
Gender: male

Re: Old Howard an apologist for banking scoundrels
Reply #16 - Apr 23^rd, 2018 at 7:22pm

Bam wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 11:12am:

Frank wrote on Apr 22^nd, 2018 at 10:58am:

Sir lastnail wrote on Apr 21^st, 2018 at 6:25pm:

Did anyone read the piece in The Australian today about Howard's comments on the Banking RC ?

It appears that Johnny Howard wants to wait a year before he makes his conclusion regarding the Banking sector even though there already has been a major fallout before the RC has really begun.

These libbos just don't get it. No battler on struggle street wants or likes to have their hard earned money ripped off them by white collar criminals. Somehow the brain dead libbos think that because a bank has done it then somehow that makes it ok Sad

When is it going to sink in to these numbnuts ?

This is what he actually said:

“I don’t for a moment condone any deceptive behaviour of either customers or of the regulatory authorities by any financial institution but I don’t want to pass judgment just on the basis of the evidence given over past few days,” he told The Australian.

You progs love nothing more than to lie and distort and turn such a sratement into 'somehow makes it ok'.

He doesn't want to pass judgement on the evidence presented in the last week? How much more evidence does this person need before he will admit there's a problem?

Why didn't he require the same level of evidence of WMD in Iraq before deciding to invade?

Passing judgement is not the same as saying there is a problem. He did not say there is no problem. he said he will not pass judgement on the basis of thee first couple of days (of and ONGOING Royal Commission).

Why not wait until it's concluded and THEN pass judgement? Knee jerk regulation is the problem, not the solution.

Estragon: I can’t go on like this.
Vladimir: That’s what you think.

IP Logged

Pages: 1 2

‹ Previous Topic | Next Topic ›

« Forum

‹ Board

Top of this page