are you comparing me to a young Julia Gillard here? or the blogger?
Why Abbott could lose the ‘unloseable’ election
- Thread starter evand
- Start date
are you comparing me to a young Julia Gillard here? or the blogger?
This story keeps re-emerging. What's the deal this time? Is there an upcoming book launch or something and someone is looking for free publicity?
No, sorry, wasn't clear.
I was saying that the blog is set up as combative and one sided forum that twists and manipulates and potentially creates facts and that it is hard to argue with such a site because there is just an extremist, polemic driven viewpoint.
No worries.
And yes. Draw whatever conclusions you want and apply that to whoever you want.
but there is no evidence... i think it does say alot about free speech.. people shouldnt be able to print stuff that they cant prove. It has all the hallmarks of a conspiracy theory to me!
And the article? What does that tell you about free speech?
Listening to some of the commentators penny, there appears to be wheelbarrow loads of it.
Of course, there are different levels of "evidence".....
Admissible court evidence
Inadmissible court evidence
Royal Commission findings
Stat Decs
Photos
Title Deeds
1,100 page Federal Authority published findings
Witness statements
Depending on which side of the fence you sit, some believe only the top one counts, everything else means nothing.
The media do not have to establish "facts" to the same level that must be attained in a criminal court to secure a conviction, before they publish something. If that were the case, our newsapers would be as thin as the court results sheets.
Gillard, being a lawyer and reknowned for denying everything, even up to the very last moment like she has been trained to do....simply plays the game. It's a game of catch me if you can.
It's like trying to grasp onto a slippery eel in a bucket of slimy oil whilst greasing your hands up with teflon coated slime. Just cos you don't latch on, doesn't mean the eel isn't in there.
Free speech is about so much more than accusing someone of something. I could write an entire essay about it but all I will say is that we already have laws to protect against false, slanderous remarks made against people, and that it is extremely draconian to try to dictate what should or should not be written or said in any form of expression.
People should feel free to print what they want within the bounds of the law.
It just doesn't mean that it's accurate or worth replying to.
For instance, take the rantings of David Icke about how the royal family are a bunch of repitilian aliens. He is free to rant about it. That doesn't mean it should be dignified with a response, or even a denial.
It just doesn't mean that it's accurate or worth replying to.
For instance, take the rantings of David Icke about how the royal family are a bunch of repitilian aliens. He is free to rant about it. That doesn't mean it should be dignified with a response, or even a denial.
I guess the only people too know would be the inner circle of the Government-Union Leaders-and anyone else with dirty hands
where ever there is smoke it always leads to fire,or look at this like this if you spoke up at a union meeting and put up questions that they did not like then 2 heavies would come and stand next too you and tell you too shut up or you are gonna have problems,which you would they would come in and cut all the elecs leads,cut the safety tags off the tools,just too make their job more important,fear is big,in the building game,i saw one day when a group of Bikies who set-up a company to install walls they had a team of about 12 Men,all patch holders and very hard workers they did not want anything too do with the Union,they only had one lunch break
no one would ever touch their tools or anything,so along come the so-called safety 1.2 mts high people in tight black jeans and freedom for all t-shirts, and do the same as they have done too me and various other subbies,the only problem was they don't back down and have more serious back-up ,all they did was wait till till the union up-starts came onto the floor,shut down the lifts and took them on it was all over within 5 minutes
not that i saw anything..and even when their union back-ups came to clean up the blood they all went too water,no Police nothing..
So if the law says something is right, it is right?
No.
Just that if it is within the boundaries of what can be printed then there should be no restrictions on what is printed.
That doesn't mean it is right. And what do you defined as right? Factually right? Morally right?
This article will show you exactly what Pickering is.
http://www.smh.com.au/business/larr...ing-gillard-20120820-24hxi.html#ixzz244HmnPNa
http://www.smh.com.au/business/larr...ing-gillard-20120820-24hxi.html#ixzz244HmnPNa
maybe evand could reply to this, instead?
Ralph Blewitt back in the country to bring down Gillard / Wilson and the AWU, to testify in front of AFP.
Labor for the win!
Giday All
ON TOPIC: Yes any politician can lose any election.
WHY because too many voters vote based on popularity competition. Not competency.
My mum would never vote for Costello because he "smirked". Not his ability or lack there of as leader and Treasurer. Ditto for Keating. That is not how you should pick our Country's direction and an argument for non compulsory voting.
So if Abbott has done something really, really bad and it comes out in the last few weeks, too late to change, then Labor could win.
ON THE CLAIMS RE GILLARD
I have read what has been posted (mostly) and some reports and I have to say I don't understand where this "Gillard was dodgy report" is coming from?
Call me cynical, but I don't think it is from the Libs but within Labour itself to get her out. Is it is a "dirt file" being used to get her to step down? Maybe Rudd? OR a elaborate sophisticated setup to get Abbott to gloat and politically "beat up a Woman".?
The Libs don't need this to win in 2012. They don't need anything. They have won it, they can only lose by taking a swing at pitches like this. Am I wrong? Maybe but like Kath and Kim says I have one word to say to you: Gordon Gretch.
Regards Peter 14.7
ON TOPIC: Yes any politician can lose any election.
WHY because too many voters vote based on popularity competition. Not competency.
My mum would never vote for Costello because he "smirked". Not his ability or lack there of as leader and Treasurer. Ditto for Keating. That is not how you should pick our Country's direction and an argument for non compulsory voting.
So if Abbott has done something really, really bad and it comes out in the last few weeks, too late to change, then Labor could win.
ON THE CLAIMS RE GILLARD
I have read what has been posted (mostly) and some reports and I have to say I don't understand where this "Gillard was dodgy report" is coming from?
Call me cynical, but I don't think it is from the Libs but within Labour itself to get her out. Is it is a "dirt file" being used to get her to step down? Maybe Rudd? OR a elaborate sophisticated setup to get Abbott to gloat and politically "beat up a Woman".?
The Libs don't need this to win in 2012. They don't need anything. They have won it, they can only lose by taking a swing at pitches like this. Am I wrong? Maybe but like Kath and Kim says I have one word to say to you: Gordon Gretch.
Regards Peter 14.7
There was a legitimate request for a royal commision into this 17 years ago, so obviously a very serious matter based on some very damning evidence, of which Julia was in the thick of.
She was NOT PM then, and this is not new or fabricated information.
Attempts by the media to published detail were quashed by Julia herself, but those speaking up now are others who are all involved in some way, and one interestingly, for those that don't know, is a Labor backbencher who was one of the two people who requested the Royal Commission way back when he was a Union head.
This case makes the Thomson case look minor and amatuer in comparison, and i suppose it's hard to believe Julia was a naive young lawyer who was oblivious to any corruption occurring around her, when she set up a dodgy account, acted on behalf of the corrupt, one who she was in a 4 year relationship with at the time, and benefited from stolen funds.
She may be innocent, but while it's unresoved, and officially not a closed case, Q's are being asked, just as they were years ago.
Last edited:
Julia and Tony are neck and neck as preferred PM according to Kotchie this morning.
It staggers me how many folk are so undecided in their views of a Party Leader, or a Party; full stop, and will switch sides based on one issue, or a few comments or their hairstyle or god knows whatever.
It staggers me how many folk are so undecided in their views of a Party Leader, or a Party; full stop, and will switch sides based on one issue, or a few comments or their hairstyle or god knows whatever.
If Abbott persists with his pearls of wisdom, Gillard might be in with a chance after all.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-hard-done-by-says-abbott-20120820-24ita.html
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/po...-hard-done-by-says-abbott-20120820-24ita.html
That's the beauty of democracy.
