Australian Politics - Thread

[wendog33]

Sure they are. Just like how you’ve already got Porter fitted out in jail threads over this and robodebt.

We went through the "I think he looked innocent" that Nat started and my reply "he looks guilty" phase

We then went back to concentrating on the "an independent enquiry by a retired High Court Judge is required".

Your level of tribalism never ceases to amaze.

 

[wendog33]

What for?
So now you’re suggesting I religiously follow the views of PVO. Who watches The Project?
Literally no idea Wendy.
Back to your pitch fork.

Gas lighting again

 

[DinkumDog]

Your level of tribalism never ceases to amaze.

Amusing coming from an out and out leftie .

 

[CaptainJackson]

I said I rate his opinion. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says or ‘follow his appearances’ as @wendog33 ludicrously suggested. Yes I’m aware that he flipped from an opinion I agree with (there’s insufficient evidence for any reasonable chance of a prosecution) to saying have an enquiry but I think that’s less to do with any pressure regarding his relationship and more to do with having read the dossier, which he believes shows there’s very little substance to the allegation whereas @wendog33 already concludes that it’s a smoking gun (not having read it of course ).

That's fine, however what you guys are accusing wendog of, I'm seeing the same bias behaviour vice versa. I've stayed out of this discussion because there's no smoking gun from either side of the argument (there's still none) and I maintain my position that a role like AG has to have the utmost spotless record and an inquiry is needed clear up what any allegations there may be.

 

[wendog33]

That’s the best you’ve got?
Taken from the victim playbook.
And of course you ignored the question.
What does PVO need to apologise for?

You need to apologise for saying:

1. "now you’re suggesting I religiously follow the views"

Exaggeration... where did I say religiously?

2. "whereas @wendog33 already concludes that it’s a smoking gun (not having read it of course"

I've only suggested the 31 pages of evidence the complainant has presented to the PM, and several other parliamentarians, be fully evaluated. Wouldnt have a clue if its a smoking gun.

3. "doesn’t mean I agree with everything he says or ‘follow his appearances’ as @wendog33 ludicrously suggested."

Where did I indicate you agree with everything he says or follow his appearances? How did I ludicrously suggest that when my post was:

I think PVO, who you rate, will be apologising to half the population pretty soon.

Tune in to The Project if you don't want to miss his next appearance

I clearly say, tune in IF YOU DONT WANT TO MISS HIS NEXT APPEARANCE. Nothing there suggesting you are a POV groupie.

Please, if you can only make up false projections and twist what I write, that's pretty poor.

There's enough material to have a truthful discussion without misrepresenting what I say...and keep your reply civil.

 

[wendog33]

That's fine, however what you guys are accusing wendog of, I'm seeing the same bias behaviour vice versa. I've stayed out of this discussion because there's no smoking gun from either side of the argument (there's still none) and I maintain my position that a role like AG has to have the utmost spotless record and an inquiry is needed clear up what any allegations there may be.

My view is the same as detailed here.

I note yours is as well.

There's nothing lefty about it. It's a sound legal and community expectation.

It's something everybody, no matter your tribe, should expect of our westminster parliamentary system.

Why is that so hard for some to fathom

Christian Porter allegations: independent inquiry no threat to rule of law, legal experts say

Prof Ben Saul says it’s ‘par for the course’ in Australia for non-criminal inquiries to look at potential criminal matters

www.theguardian.com

 

[DinkumDog]

That's fine, however what you guys are accusing wendog of, I'm seeing the same bias behaviour vice versa. I've stayed out of this discussion because there's no smoking gun from either side of the argument (there's still none) and I maintain my position that a role like AG has to have the utmost spotless record and an inquiry is needed clear up what any allegations there may be.

I agree with part of this.
There’s no smoking gun.
And no amount of articles @wendog33 posts will change that.
To quote her: ‘Why is that so hard for some to fathom?’ .
I personally don’t care if there’s an enquiry or not. I’m not a conservative and not protecting anyone. My position is simple and has never wavered: there’s no evidence to proceed and that’s the bottom line.

 

[wendog33]

Let's lighten the mood in the Aussie Politics Thread

https://www.facebook.com/video.php?v=1333951506990363

 

[wendog33]

Another tome .
You seriously want/think you’re entitled to an apology?

Of course I didn't expect an apology from you.

You could address your hysterical conflating of what I wrote tho

 

[wendog33]

I agree with part of this.
There’s no smoking gun.
And no amount of articles @wendog33 posts will change that.
To quote her: ‘Why is that so hard for some to fathom?’ .
I personally don’t care if there’s an enquiry or not. I’m not a conservative and not protecting anyone. My position is simple and has never wavered: there’s no evidence to proceed and that’s the bottom line.

Sheet I wish you'd said that several days ago when you started your bombastic defence of the unsuitability of holding an enquiry.

What is so hard to fathom is why it's taken you this long to write...

"I personally don’t care if there’s an enquiry or not."

 

[CaptainJackson]

My position is simple and has never wavered: there’s no evidence to proceed and that’s the bottom line.

Criminal charges yes, an inquiry no. It depends on what the inquiry is set up to do and what limitations it's given.

 

[wendog33]

I agree with part of this.
There’s no smoking gun.
And no amount of articles @wendog33 posts will change that.
To quote her: ‘Why is that so hard for some to fathom?’ .
I personally don’t care if there’s an enquiry or not. I’m not a conservative and not protecting anyone. My position is simple and has never wavered: there’s no evidence to proceed and that’s the bottom line.

I post the articles for those interested in the female side of the argument to open and evaluate them for themselves.

If they aren't interested then thats fine. Obviously they won't open them.

You'd be surprised at the amount of support thru pm's I've had from men concerned about the issue which I think is wonderful.

 

[The DoggFather]

What's a PVO?

 

[wendog33]

Thank heavens SMH finding a voice about the christian right radicals taking over our politics.

The Christian Right conference plotting a political takeover

“It’s not branch stacking, it’s participation,” the conference convenor declared. “It’s just turning up. And it’s our turn.”

www.smh.com.au

 

[wendog33]

I rate Julia Baird.

Too many of us believe women lie about rape. In fact, they rarely report it

The truth is that Australian women overwhelmingly choose not to report rape, but many have found their voice in recent weeks.

www.smh.com.au

 

[The DoggFather]

Thank heavens SMH finding a voice about the christian right radicals taking over our politics.

The Christian Right conference plotting a political takeover

“It’s not branch stacking, it’s participation,” the conference convenor declared. “It’s just turning up. And it’s our turn.”

www.smh.com.au

I wonder if you exchange "Christian" with "Jewish" or "Muslim" what the reaction would be to this article.

A real Christian wouldn't want anything to do with the vipers den that is called politics.

PS only part of the article that rings true is the "politicians are like nappies"..... because they are full of shit.

 

[south of heaven]

What's a PVO?

No idea kept thinking it was pov in porn

 

[CaptainJackson]

What's a PVO?

He's a journalist, Peter van Olsen.

 

[The DoggFather]

No idea kept thinking it was pov in porn

Bahahahahahahhaa I honestly thought the same thing lol

 

[The DoggFather]

He's a journalist, Peter van Olsen.

Is he a real journo, or just another opinionated, agenda pushing commentator?