• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Julia Gillard - liar

And everytime Kath responds to questions to the depth of her involvement and knowledge to the scam with "Mr Abbott is a big meanie because he can't prove it" instead of a denial or assertion of innocence, her support base shrinks a bit as people wonder "Why doesn't she just say she didn't do it or didn't know?"

It's always the coverup, not the crime, that get you in the end.

First of all you need an accusation to deny. This is a Kafkaesque nightmare of having to answer an accusation that hasn't been made. If Gillard hasn't been involved in the fraud, as she says, then how can she explain her involvement in the fraud. The relentless demand for answers is really a demand for Gillard to explain her part in the conspiracy to defraud the AWU. Anything less is dismissed as not answering the questions.
 
Last edited:
First of all you need an accusation to deny. This is a Kafkaesque nightmare of having to answer an accusation that hasn't been made. If Gillard hasn't been involved in the fraud, as she says, then how can she explain her involvement in the fraud. The relentless demand for answers is really a demand for Gillard to admit to taking part in the conspiracy to defraud the AWU. Anything less is dismissed as not answering the questions.

Correct. That so many have accepted this as a legitimate tactic by the Opposition is amazing.

It's not far removed at all from Truthers "Just Asking Questions". I didn't think I would see so many Australians acting like Truthers.
 
Correct. That so many have accepted this as a legitimate tactic by the Opposition is amazing.

It's not far removed at all from Truthers "Just Asking Questions". I didn't think I would see so many Australians acting like Truthers.

Been trying to get the JAQing Off meme out to the chattering class on Twitter, no luck yet though.

Heard Emerson call Abbott a "one trick tony" in Parliament the other day, which I recently coined, I like to think he pinched it from me - he is a prolific tweeter :D
 
Last edited:
And everytime Kath responds to questions to the depth of her involvement and knowledge to the scam with "Mr Abbott is a big meanie because he can't prove it" instead of a denial or assertion of innocence, her support base shrinks a bit as people wonder "Why doesn't she just say she didn't do it or didn't know?"

It's always the coverup, not the crime, that get you in the end.

Yeah thanks for that Glen Beck :eek: :rolleyes:

#notsureifserious
 
And everytime Kath responds to questions to the depth of her involvement and knowledge to the scam with "Mr Abbott is a big meanie because he can't prove it" instead of a denial or assertion of innocence, her support base shrinks a bit as people wonder "Why doesn't she just say she didn't do it or didn't know?"

It's always the coverup, not the crime, that get you in the end.

Congrats on missing the point.
 
Congrats on missing the point.

He may have but he has another:
Why does Gillard not answer the questions? If she "did nothing wrong" and has nothing to hide, why would she go out of her way to avoid answering direct questions?

eg.
Q. Did you write to the WA commission to get the slush fund incorporated?

A. You can't prove that I did.
 
First of all you need an accusation to deny. This is a Kafkaesque nightmare of having to answer an accusation that hasn't been made. If Gillard hasn't been involved in the fraud, as she says, then how can she explain her involvement in the fraud. The relentless demand for answers is really a demand for Gillard to explain her part in the conspiracy to defraud the AWU. Anything less is dismissed as not answering the questions.

Excellent post. The level of derp is really quite surreal.
 
Julie Bishop explains to the ignorant what laws may have been broken:

Her advice offended against section 8 of the WA Associations Incorporation Act 1987, which provides that an association cannot have a name “likely to mislead” as to the object or purpose of the association – it was a slush fund for elections, not about safe workplaces.

The name was also “identical with or likely to be confused with” the name of another entity, in this case the AWU.

There were only two members of the association, Wilson and Blewitt, and not the requisite “more than five members”.

Not surprisingly, the Commissioner of Corporate Affairs questioned the application.

Gillard wrote to the commissioner “arguing for its incorporation"… Using the authority of her standing as a partner in a law firm, Gillard was able to convince the commissioner that the association had the authority of the AWU, that it was for the purpose of workplace safety, and that it had more than five members.

It is an offence under section 43 of the act to knowingly make false and misleading statements.

Once the association was registered, it is alleged that Wilson fraudulently obtained hundreds of thousands of dollars from building companies, who believed they were dealing with the AWU, for workplace safety and training purposes.

The fraudulent activities continued with various twists and turns but the existence of this slush fund was not detected until 1996.

The federal opposition contends that in relation to the setting up of the incorporation, Wilson, Blewitt and Gillard have a case to answer under Section 43 of the act.

Section 170 of the Criminal Code is also relevant, which provides that “any person who being required ... to give information ... knowingly gives information .. that is false in a material particular is guilty of a crime ... “

Section 409 of the Criminal Code sets out the elements of the criminal act of fraud.
 
He may have but he has another:
Why does Gillard not answer the questions? If she "did nothing wrong" and has nothing to hide, why would she go out of her way to avoid answering direct questions?

eg.
Q. Did you write to the WA commission to get the slush fund incorporated?

A. You can't prove that I did.

Why bother with that when you can just convict the Prime Minister based on an opinion poll? Which is what you were trying to do on the last page until the subject was changed.
 
And now it's someone elses turn to congratulate you on missing that point. ;)


I get the point. I think what you're missing is that I'm ignoring it because 1. it's a divergence from what I was attempting to discuss with you and 2. it lacks substance and is quite literally old news.

So I can safely say that you concede that saying an opinion poll is evidence for breaking the law is complete ********.

Thank you.

ETA: This reminds me of why I put you on ignore in the first place.
 
So I can safely say that you concede that saying an opinion poll is evidence for breaking the law is complete ********.

If I was making the point that an opinion poll was in fact evidence of breaking the law you would have me cold. Too bad for you that I suggested nothing along those lines; I was simply pointing out that the public THINK she is a big fat LIAR.

You either deliberately attempted to move the goalposts or you simply missed the point. Either way (shrugs), meh.


As for actually breaking the law, I have posted the opinion of a lawyer above. Perhaps you would try and pull that argument apart. The ball is now with you.
 
Last edited:
So's Gillard. You accept Bishop's opinion but not hers?

You know that any "opinion" by Bishop is useless, so why post it?
 
So's Gillard. You accept Bishop's opinion but not hers?

You know that any "opinion" by Bishop is useless, so why post it?

You know what else's useless? Arguing with certain ppl on the internet. Now that's useless! ;)
 
Last edited:
Why would I bother if I can simply ignore.

And therein we have the attitude of the Gillard sycophant. The skeptical thinker who believes her even when other evidence suggests otherwise. Those that will attack others, name call and slander rather than listen to facts that challenges their world view. Yet these very same people consider themselves the champions of skeptical thinking and reason - they are not.

So, why indeed would you bother looking; you have already made up your mind and did so some time ago. :covereyes
 

Back
Top Bottom