- Thread starter
- #1,301
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Since August you have been promising that the truth will come out, that the PM is in this up to her eyeballs, questioning the intelligence of anyone who didn't buy into the word of two embittered media hacks, and now it looks as though, at best, these are allegations that can't possibly be proven and at worst they are just outright bullshit from a few dinosaurs who still can't handle a chick running the shop.
So Julie Bishop has the smoking gun gun her hand, the one that will prove the guilt of the PM beyond all reasonable doubt, but instead choose to be made to look like a dickhead on national television rather than reveal it? Or is it one of the other conga line of suckholes that the Coalition has brought forth to convince us of Gillard's guilt. Tell me man, you are so utterly convinced of her guilt.Let's come back to this on Thursday night, but in any event I'm more interested in the Vic fraud squad investigation.
I actually had a pleasant day but it's raining heavily here now.
Thanks for asking, though.
s**t government but at least they are mega entertaining. Hats off to the fans on both sides too. You guys are a lot of fun.
This has been a bad day for you hasn't it DR?
Open? He looked as dodgy as hell.
It's two things - firstly, its what I surmised had happened after I read the S & G transcript and also had a hot fling myself with an adventurer when JG's age and secondly it was how I reckon Campbell/Blair would have managed it.
Anyway, after watching Wilson tonight I'd have to revise my scenario. For good looking charismatic read half brained dodgy sleaze. Oh Jules, good taste.
First time I watched 7.30 report in ages. Funny stuff.
Thanks for the flattery, Jane but you won't get any 'adjudication' from me. Too many unknowns. That was the point of posting the link - to show the difficulty in drawing conclusions based on limited knowledge. Having said that, I don't see any clear reason to deviate from his conclusions, notwithstanding the arguments from the randoms in the comments.Thanks. Am really interested in your adjudication. The conflict of interest issue in relation to JG having been in 4-5 year relationship with Wilson while all this was happening has always raised questions for me, but since nobody else seem to be pursuing was thinking moi was just being old fashioned and puritanical .
fwiw, after yesterday my sense is that JG is getting into a gawd almighty mess - not with the general electorate, mind you, but with the caucus, the union honchos, partic AWU and most dangerously with the AWU people who have obviously been seething about what happened for the last 17 years.
Your lawyersweekly link just confirms it, imo. If it is the case that "If Wilson told her he was acting under the authority of the AWU then no conflict arises " then the question screams out :- when she found out in Aug/Sept 1995 that Wilson had conned her about the authorisation leading her to break up with him, why didn't she inform the AWU about the existence of the workplace reform association - immediately?
Her defence "I didn't have any evidence" - is the Craig Thomson defence and it just doesn't wash.
A variant of the ad hominem argument. Good for you. Tough day for the Tories, I see.
Indifference is the only intelligent option with such horrible political parties. You keep up the one eyed barracking like it's football though champ.s**t post, but at least you are entertaining. Hats off to your political illiteracy and indifference. Guys like you are a lot of fun.
I don't know much about Blewiit, but I presume pretty much everyone involved in this saga is a crook. It is Slaters and the AWU afterall.
Go and watch last nights episode then compare and contrast. I know who I reckon comes cross as the bigger crook.
Indifference is the only intelligent option with such horrible political parties. You keep up the one eyed barracking like it's football though champ.
Bolded is a dull, hackneyed, and nowadays populist stance.
So Julie Bishop has the smoking gun gun her hand, the one that will prove the guilt of the PM beyond all reasonable doubt, but instead choose to be made to look like a dickhead on national television rather than reveal it? Or is it one of the other conga line of suckholes that the Coalition has brought forth to convince us of Gillard's guilt. Tell me man, you are so utterly convinced of her guilt.
the other conga line of suckholes that the Coalition has brought forth to convince us of Gillard's guilt
Indifference is the only intelligent option with such horrible political parties. You keep up the one eyed barracking like it's football though champ.
A bit off topic, but what happened to the other six hamsters?
Do we need a Royal Commision?
So Julie Bishop has the smoking gun gun her hand, the one that will prove the guilt of the PM beyond all reasonable doubt, but instead choose to be made to look like a dickhead on national television rather than reveal it? Or is it one of the other conga line of suckholes that the Coalition has brought forth to convince us of Gillard's guilt. Tell me man, you are so utterly convinced of her guilt.