Windhover
The Slush fund she set up was used in a fraud,
indirectly she was involved.
Oh, I get it now. Gillard's now deceased dad raised her so he to was indirectly involved. The WA government at the time who appointed those who approved the set up of the slush fund were indirectly involved. And on and on.
When you use weasel words like "
indirectly involved" might I suggest all you are really saying is: "There is nothing to see here, despite appearances. Please move on." In which case I would be happy to agree with you.
Politically this is called the whiff of corruption, its not a good look.
No, "politically" it is called a massive beat-up to distract the stupid from matters that are of real importance. The beauty of it from Abbott's point of view was he didn't even push the barrow because he had a compliant media doing it all the barrow. See? No dirty fingers.
Do you honestly think this did no damage to her self proclaimed high moral status ?
Um, I am not sure what question you are asking. I do not even know what you are referring to as Gillard's "self-proclaimed" high moral status. I mean, she admits to having a sexual relationship with a man to whom she is not married. For some people this is an admission of very low moral standing. I am pleased to see you are more tolerant on the issue but people are entitled to their own moral opinions.
Perhaps you could expand on the subject and tell us all in what ways Gillard expressed by words, acts and/or deeds (and thus "self-proclaimed") a high moral status. I would be interested in that.
No I don't have any evidence she knew, but do you believe she knew nothing ?
When I have no proper material on which to form an opinion on a subject one way or the other, I refrain from holding an opinion. But that means
I have no reason to suspect Gillard of any wrongdoing. I do not have "a belief" that she knew nothing, because I simply don't know. But, naturally enough, the result is the same.
Since you now admit to not having any evidence Gillard knew anything that might implicate her in any wrongdoing in relation to matters that go back nearly 20 years, I am surprised you do not regard the whole thing as a complete nonsense.
If you do your a fool or Gillard is grossly incompetent. Which is it ? both?
What an interesting binary. I hope you now understand that I have no "belief" one way or the other - and it seems nor do you (or at least you have no evidence for your belief and you are the sort of person that likes to believe in non-evidence based thingies like fairies and unicorns). How or why I should accept Gillard
was grossly incompetent 20 years ago is not explained by you. Certainly I accept Gillard made mistakes. She has admitted as much. Making mistakes does not necessarily make a person "incompetent" let alone grossly so. Otherwise, by your "self-proclaimed" high standards we would all be in for a fair bit of criticism.
Reporting is just that, reporting exactly what was said or describing what was seen.
If you don't know the difference between reporting and opinion which it seems you don't then I suggest you don't talk about media bias at all.
Why is it I get the awkward feeling that we are not understanding each other. It seems from your response that what I post is as much a mystery to you as what you post is to me. I at least comfort myself with the knowledge that I explain to you what I do not understand. You seem blissfully ignorant of your misunderstandings. Far be it for me to suggest that is other than a temporary state of mind - since I can have no evidence of your other activities.