Gillard labels Abbott a misogynist

A.A. Alfie said:
It was a sooky poor me dummy spit of the first order.
And yet she will defend Peter Slipper. She will also demand that Abbott apologise for comments of others, yet when her party is present and disgusting jokes are made she allows her MPs to fail her own test.

Talk about hypocritical.

Worst PM ever.
Click to expand...

I know nothing of Australian politics, however, I did listen to the entire speeh, and this appears to be complete rubbish. She did not defend Peter Slipper, she even stated that his text messages were offensive. What she did defend was due process (i.e. Slipper was technically innocent until proven guilty by the court), and that the Parliament should not make a hasty decision and should wait for the judge's decision. This is not "defending Slipper". She is attacking Abbott for his hypocrisy and his own misoginy, and she was completely correct, assuming the Abbott quotes are true (and I've seen nothing to indicate that they aren't).
 
Wow!

She rocks!

Best speech I have heard in a long time.

Boy did she nail it point after point after point.

Go Gillard! Australia is lucky to have you.
 
HoverBoarder said:
Maybe they were watching a different speech since that was not at all what was included in the speech that was linked to on this thread.

More likely, maybe they didn't watch the speech at all before writing their article.
Click to expand...

picture.php
 
Last edited:
HoverBoarder said:
Maybe they were watching a different speech since that was not at all what was included in the speech that was linked to on this thread.

More likely, maybe they didn't watch the speech at all before writing their article.
Click to expand...

Some of the Australian's MSM response helps me understand why someone like Tony Abbott can be in politics and esp. why Abbott thought it would be a good idea for him to be the one to introduce the motion to have Peter Slipper removed from the Speaker of the House position. Couldn't someone else from his party have introduced the motion? I bet he regrets it now!

Here's a link to the transcript of Julia Gillard's speech.

Dynamite speech!
 
A.A. Alfie said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=329&pictureid=1976[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Ok, well, why would they have written an article that had nothing to do with what she said in the speech if they seriously watched it?
 
HoverBoarder said:
Ok, well, why would they have written an article that had nothing to do with what she said in the speech if they seriously watched it?
Click to expand...

picture.php


One must understand the full picture - you are commenting on one small sentence in a longer story. Moreover - you then suggest that the experts (those that follow the topic intimately) have not listened and carefully digested every word on the page.

Impressive speech for the uninformed or her barrackers? Maybe.
Real in terms of the full picture? Not even close. It was a disgusting perversion of the truth and an appallingly transparent diversion from her own failings.
 
Last edited:
A.A. Alfie said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=329&pictureid=1976[/qimg]
Click to expand...

Let's see, how can I get this one through, let's try it another way.

What in the article that you linked to included anything remotely close to what she actually said, and why?
 
Power over principle is a good start.

Ask yourself these types of questions. Why did she attack the opposition leader in this way? What was the topic being debated when she went on her rant?. Was her foot stamping and sooking germane to the argument (iow, how did the speech address his/parties arguments)?

Start there, perhaps you will learn something.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
[qimg]http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/picture.php?albumid=329&pictureid=1976[/qimg]

One must understand the full picture - you are commenting on one small sentence in a longer story. Moreover - you then suggest that the experts (those that follow the topic intimately) have not listened and carefully digested every word on the page.

Impressive speech for the uninformed or her barrackers? Maybe.
Real in terms of the full picture? Not even close. It was a disgusting perversion of the truth and an appallingly transparent diversion from her own failings.
Click to expand...

Oh, didn't see that you edited your post to actually include words.

Thank you.


I am by no means an expert in Australian politics, but I did take a politics class there when I was studying abroad in Adelaide.

Still, I am not sure how her speech was a "disgusting perversion of the truth." It was not like she came out and defended Slipper in any part of her speech, so it seemed pretty genuine to me. Maybe you can elaborate.
 
Morrigan said:
I know nothing of Australian politics, however, I did listen to the entire speeh, and this appears to be complete rubbish. She did not defend Peter Slipper, she even stated that his text messages were offensive. What she did defend was due process (i.e. Slipper was technically innocent until proven guilty by the court), and that the Parliament should not make a hasty decision and should wait for the judge's decision. This is not "defending Slipper". She is attacking Abbott for his hypocrisy and his own misoginy, and she was completely correct, assuming the Abbott quotes are true (and I've seen nothing to indicate that they aren't).
Click to expand...
^ This. I'm not familiar with Australian politics either, but to me it's quite obvious she's not defending Slipper or his conduct --to the contrary -- she defends the due process in her speech. Which by the way Rocks!
 
See #29. Start reading and learning.

The question at issue was whether the speaker of the house should be removed from his post for these texts.

Warning - extremely crude language


Gillard and Labor then tried to conflate an issue before the courts (a sexual harassment case) with whether he is the person that should be overseeing all parliamentary standards (which in part is the speakers role). It should also be pointed out that Slipper has form in other areas where his standards would not gel with most (eg. financial priveleges for which he is under investigation also).

Her defense of Slipper amounted to a attack on another. In essence saying "it doesn't matter that he is a misogynist because you are too".

She proved herself in the eyes of many - even her left leaning journalist mates - to be hollow, hypocritical and left them wondering what she actually stands for.

Power over principle.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
See #29. Start reading and learning.

The question at issue was whether the speaker of the house should be removed from his post for these texts.

Warning - extremely crude language


Gillard and Labor then tried to conflate an issue before the courts (a sexual harassment case) with whether he is the person that should be overseeing all parliamentary standards (which in part is the speakers role). It should also be pointed out that Slipper has form in other areas where his standards would not gel with most (eg. financial priveleges for which he is under investigation also).

Her defense of Slipper amounted to a attack on another. In essence saying "it doesn't matter that he is a misogynist because you are too".

She proved herself in the eyes of many - even her left leaning journalist mates - to be hollow, hypocritical and left them wondering what she actually stands for.

Power over principle.
Click to expand...

Yep, already seen the texts.

She still didn't defend Slipper in any part of her speech, and the article you linked to still had nothing to do with what she actually said.

Maybe what they wanted to believe.

But that's a whole nother matter entirely.
 
spin0 said:
^ This. I'm not familiar with Australian politics either, but to me it's quite obvious she's not defending Slipper or his conduct --to the contrary -- she defends the due process in her speech. Which by the way Rocks!
Click to expand...

Nothing to do with due process. The question before parliament was not the same as the ones before the courts. The texts messages are not disputed. She tells lies here really.

Ultimately Slipper has resigned anyway because they are not disputed and he "understands the arguments of those against him". His position was untenable - he saw that, yet Gillard defended it.

Like I said, read up and learn.
 
spin0 said:
^ This. I'm not familiar with Australian politics either, but to me it's quite obvious she's not defending Slipper or his conduct --to the contrary -- she defends the due process in her speech. Which by the way Rocks!
Click to expand...

It was a pretty awesome speech.

I wish we had someone of her intelligence here.
 
HoverBoarder said:
Yep, already seen the texts.

She still didn't defend Slipper in any part of her speech, and the article you linked to still had nothing to do with what she actually said.

Maybe what they wanted to believe.

But that's a whole nother matter entirely.
Click to expand...

You are reading one sentence from the entire page

I repeat:
Impressive speech for the uninformed or her barrackers? Maybe.
Real in terms of the full picture? Not even close. It was a disgusting perversion of the truth and an appallingly transparent diversion from her own failings.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
The question at issue was whether the speaker of the house should be removed from his post for these texts.
Warning - extremely crude language
Click to expand...
Sry. Not able to watch a youtubevideo now.
(Why txt into video anyway? Probably the clumsiest transformation possible.)

A.A. Alfie said:
Her defense of Slipper amounted to a attack on another. In essence saying "it doesn't matter that he is a misogynist because you are too".
Click to expand...
As I already said I did not hear her defend Slipper's conduct at any point in her speech. In fact I found her speech inspiring. She truly Rocks there! Awesome speech. Simply awesome.
 
Last edited:
spin0 said:
As I already said I did not hear her defend Slipper's conduct at any point in her speech.
Click to expand...

Exactly. And yet that (Slipper) was exactly what was on the table for debate. I repeat - you (and others) are looking at one sentence on a whole page. Context. She and her party said much more on the same day.
 
^ So you mean you were not truthful about her speech in this thread. Yeah, I --and I believe many others-- figured that out long ago. You know, having seen the speech and then reading how your personal account differs.

But what an awesome speech! Man, I wish there were more like her. Inspirational stuff from the heart right there. No wonder it went viral around the globe.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom