• Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more

Australian Federal Election 2010

Status
Not open for further replies.
bit_pattern said:
You'd sure like it to be serious and I'm sure it will be a complete beat-up.
Click to expand...

I'm sure you hope it's a complete beat up.

Interestingly the senate have said it isn't, or they wouldn't have asked that it be investigated.

You can hope, I'll just wait. ;)
 
A.A. Alfie said:
I'm sure you hope it's a complete beat up.

Interestingly the senate have said it isn't, or they wouldn't have asked that it be investigated.

You can hope, I'll just wait. ;)
Click to expand...

I suspect that considering the claims that were put forward the Senate was obligated to investigate them. They could investigate and then conclude that it was a beat up though.
 
Anything to get that chesire cat smile from his face, anything at all, even a new boyfriend who turns out to be a woman. :p
 
A.A. Alfie said:
Interestingly the senate have said it isn't, or they wouldn't have asked that it be investigated.
Click to expand...

By "the Senate" you mean the Seante president, right? Because here is what he had to say about his decision:

Senator Hogg said: "There is no question that the matters raised by Senator Kroger are very serious ones.

"The freedom of individual members of parliament to perform their duties on behalf of the people they represent and the need for them to be seen to be free of any improper external influence are of fundamental importance."

He said the matters raised related directly to the issue of parliamentary privileges and allowed Senator Kroger's motion to go ahead.​

Hear, hear! Couldn't agree more and I imagine neither could the Greens, transparency is essential in a functioning democracy.
 
Wildy said:
I suspect that considering the claims that were put forward the Senate was obligated to investigate them. They could investigate and then conclude that it was a beat up though.
Click to expand...

Precisely. It's just another stunt by the Lib's who are throwing everything including the kitchen sink at trying to be as disruptive to this parliament as possible.
 
Surely the Libs are not that stupid that they will go into the next election with that idiot. But apart from a handful, the cupboard looks very bare.
 
amb said:
Surely the Libs are not that stupid that they will go into the next election with that idiot. But apart from a handful, the cupboard looks very bare.
Click to expand...
The Noalition do have Turnbull.
You know the bloke with the policies.
I must admit Abbott has lasted much longer than I thought.
I thought he was going to crash and burn within 6 months.:o
But this could be the beginning of the end of the mad monk.
But I could be wrong, I often am.
 
Turnbull will at least give the Libs a modicum of credibility.

Anyway, Alfie, your prediction of an early election? Looks pretty sick.
 
A.A. Alfie said:
How abooout .... Barnaby Joyce?
Click to expand...
Okay, Abbott is not as bad as Joyce.

From a few months ago:
Nationals Senate leader Barnaby Joyce told the rally his four daughters would be affected if same-sex marriage was allowed.

"We know that the best protection for those girls is that they get themselves into a secure relationship with a loving husband, and I want that to happen for them.

"I don't want any legislator to take that right away from me."
Click to expand...
http://www.smh.com.au/national/ange...ay-marriage-20110816-1iw1e.html#ixzz1ecLx28fG
 
Compared to Abbott Bugs Bunny or Foghorn Leghorn would give the Libs more credibility. But I'm of the opinion that a drovers dog could lead the Libs at next election, and romp it in. Now, where did I hear that before? My apologies Hyden.
 
lionking said:
Turnbull will at least give the Libs a modicum of credibility.
Click to expand...

Turnbull will never get the gig back imo. The coalition are on a good thing anti-carbon tax wise.

But why do we suddenly think Abbott is going?

lionking said:
Anyway, Alfie, your prediction of an early election? Looks pretty sick.
Click to expand...

It does rather, still a long way to go though, don't you think?
I guess you saw Jenkins' resignatiuon coming did you?;)

Alan said:
Okay, Abbott is not as bad as Joyce.
Click to expand...

Sooo... not ABA?

Damien Evans said:
If nothing else it would prove entertaining.
Click to expand...

He does have a wondeful turn of phrase from time to time. :)
 
Last edited:
Abbott is all wind and bluster. He doesn't have to do a thing to become the next PM, and may the gawds help us all when that day arrives.
 
bit_pattern said:
By "the Senate" you mean the Seante president, right? Because here is what he had to say about his decision:

Senator Hogg said: "There is no question that the matters raised by Senator Kroger are very serious ones.

"The freedom of individual members of parliament to perform their duties on behalf of the people they represent and the need for them to be seen to be free of any improper external influence are of fundamental importance."

He said the matters raised related directly to the issue of parliamentary privileges and allowed Senator Kroger's motion to go ahead.​

Hear, hear! Couldn't agree more and I imagine neither could the Greens, transparency is essential in a functioning democracy.
Click to expand...

My point is validated (my bold). Thanks.

But to your point; we already know how transparent the greens are don't we? Do I need to remind you of Hanson-Young and Asher and the prescripted questions? Transparent? lol!

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-13/hanson-young-defends-talks-with-ombudsman/3569668

But tell me - on the subject of transparency, within the moronsGreen's (non) border protection policy where do they outline what they would do with non genuine refugees - say someone who was a serious criminal of some type?

Wildy said:
But are they going to keep the tax cuts that made up part of the legislation when they try and repeal it?
Click to expand...

Are they going to keep them? I was unaware of that. Seems a bit odd to me if they are. Source?

And if they aren't, big deal. People receive tax cuts to compensate for higher costs that will be passed along and maintain the financial status quo for households. If those costs are then removed there is no need for the tax cuts anymore and the status quo is again retained. What's the problem?
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

ISF - Join now!

Every member here is approved by hand. No bots, no spam, just people who care about evidence and honest debate.

Membership is free!

Create your free account

Back
Top Bottom