Scott Morrison - How Long? Part 5 - The stroll out.

[Chief]

Continued in Part 6.

Play Nice - Scott Morrison - How Long? Part 6 - Prosperity Theology, The Coal Man + His Bootlickers

Part 5 is here: https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/scott-morrison-how-long-part-5-the-stroll-out.1275975/

www.bigfooty.com

 

[Number37]

Its not an argument, it was a guess as to why they chose to use a blind trust. I do agree he would know or at least have some idea why it was done that way.
It is proper that he is no longer a Minister.
What is his marital status? Could his wife have a claim on a gift to him personally, thus changing divorce proceedings.
His father passed away 15 months ago, is his estate involved?

Much of that info is available if you are prepared to look.

That is some bizarre obfuscation, even for you.

What possible adverse public outcry could befall a dead man if that dead man gifted a million dollars to his son via his estate?
The answer is NONE!

If Porter came out and said my dad put some money way in case I got into trouble, most people would say yeah, that makes sense, if I had a grubby son I would put some money away for a rainy day too, knowing the grubby little grub will one day do something really stupid. Parent's intuition.


As for his marital status.
His wife, if he has one, and any claim she may have to that money won't change depending on whether the donor remains anonymous.
I would go as far as to say it is completely irrelevant, if she wants to claim her cut of the money, there is nothing stopping her now, the cat is out of the bag, it doesn't matter who the donor was.
So we can strike that out.

What else you got?

 

[Footy Time]

or touching up little boys (largely the specialty of christianity) and Australia has a negative view of their history.

It is pathetic how weak you all are.

Ooh religious stereotypes, nice. Are we allowed to have a discussion about negative stereotypes of all religions, or only Christianity?

You're not a snowflake and weak after all, so I'd assume it's the latter, no?

 

[Gethelred]

are you ******* kidding me
just you watch you ******* dog

**** off.

Livid.

 

[Paul Kersey]

Call the election Scummo - we want you and your scummy government gone.

 

[Northalives]

That is some bizarre obfuscation, even for you.

What possible adverse public outcry could befall a dead man if that dead man gifted a million dollars to his son via his estate?
The answer is NONE!

If Porter came out and said my dad put some money way in case I got into trouble, most people would say yeah, that makes sense, if I had a grubby son I would put some money away for a rainy day too, knowing the grubby little grub will one day do something really stupid. Parent's intuition.


As for his marital status.
His wife, if he has one, and any claim she may have to that money won't change depending on whether the donor remains anonymous.
I would go as far as to say it is completely irrelevant, if she wants to claim her cut of the money, there is nothing stopping her now, the cat is out of the bag, it doesn't matter who the donor was.
So we can strike that out.

What else you got?

I have a crush on him?

 

[The Cryptkeeper]

yep, Robodebt was a shocker.
Not looking for sympathy for Porter, its the zigzagging to deny the presumption of innocence that underpins our legal system that is being ignored to get a political head that is problematic.

I stopped presuming Porter’s innocence the moment he started to act like a guilty person.

 

[Number37]

I have a crush on him?

That actually makes more sense than anything else put forward, so far.

 

[sherb]

I stopped presuming Porter’s innocence the moment he started to act like a guilty person.

For an innocent person, he sure does a mighty fine impression of a guilty person.

 

[Evolved1]

We may have to storm the capitol.

Isn't that what the Trump fans did? Anyway, I'd love to see you do it.

 

[jatz14]

yep, Robodebt was a shocker.
Not looking for sympathy for Porter, its the zigzagging to deny the presumption of innocence that underpins our legal system that is being ignored to get a political head that is problematic.

We are not the government or the judicial system, we do not have to presume he is innocent.

Answer this, if I punched you in the face, but didn't face a trial because of lack of evidence, do you have to presume I am innocent? Can I sue you if you tell people I punched you in the face? Do the people that trust what you say and believe you, have to presume I am innocent? If people believe, on the balance of available evidence, that I probably did punch you in the face, can they say so? If word gets around, do I get to object to the discussion of my violent tendencies on the basis that I must be presumed innocent?

A world where the answer to those questions is yes, you, and your friends, and those that believe you, have to talk and act like I am completely innocent unless I am convicted in court, is a politicians wet dream. Corruption is awfully hard to prove in court, and if suspected corrupt politicians must be treated as innocent, then they can rort to their hearts content, with absolutely no comeback. Any talk about you, sue for libel. Suppress that evidence, suppress that news, suppress those that know what you are. Roll in those anonymous millions.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Ooh religious stereotypes, nice. Are we allowed to have a discussion about negative stereotypes of all religions, or only Christianity?

You're not a snowflake and weak after all, so I'd assume it's the latter, no?

You’re welcome to argue religion to your heart’s content on the appropriate threads.

Poster raised Christianity because it’s the dominant religion of Australia and the one which many of our politicians, including the subject of this thread, openly and hypocritically claim to follow.

Poster raised Christianity and child abuse because, unless you’ve been dwelling in a cave, a recent royal commission showed beyond a doubt the shocking degree to which Christian institutions had been not only covering up, but committing horrifying acts of child abuse.

 

[QuietB]

Ooh religious stereotypes, nice. Are we allowed to have a discussion about negative stereotypes of all religions, or only Christianity?

You're not a snowflake and weak after all, so I'd assume it's the latter, no?

The point is you simply cannot pretend these things didn’t happen simply because you want to. If the shoe fits ….

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Ooh religious stereotypes, nice. Are we allowed to have a discussion about negative stereotypes of all religions, or only Christianity?

You're not a snowflake and weak after all, so I'd assume it's the latter, no?

Every single one of them is a cult

 

[QuietB]

You’re welcome to argue religion to your heart’s content on the appropriate threads.

Poster raised Christianity because it’s the dominant religion of Australia and the one which many of our politicians, including the subject of this thread, openly and hypocritically claim to follow.

Poster raised Christianity and child abuse because, unless you’ve been dwelling in a cave, a recent royal commission showed beyond a doubt the shocking degree to which Christian institution had been not only covering up but committing horrifying acts of child abuse.

I also raised christianity because that is the one and only religion Alan Tudge referenced in his curriculum diatribe in QT yesterday.

Presumably because Australia is the great south holy land of white Anglo christians and the curriculum should highlight and celebrate this. But ignore all the bad shit they did.

Anything else would be a “black armband view of Australia’s history” which Tudge also offered in his diatribe.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Can’t seem to cut and paste the Cathy Wilcox cartoon on the SMH Letters page today but it’s a corker.

Several excellent letters on the government’s shameless protection of the coward Porter immediately below it too.

Refusal to deal with blind trust erodes integrity

Speaker Tony Smith displays both impartiality, which the Speaker should have, and integrity, which the Coalition lacks.

www.smh.com.au

 

[Magruder]

I also raised christianity because that is the one and only religion Alan Tudge referenced in his curriculum diatribe in QT yesterday.

Presumably because Australia is the great south holy land of white Anglo christians and the curriculum should highlight and celebrate this. But ignore all the bad sh*t they did.

Anything else would be a “black armband view of Australia’s history” which Tudge also offered in his diatribe.

only thing that annoys me more than Tudge and associated culture warriors,is Innes Willox being offered as an expert on anything other his own entrenched and undeservEd privilege.

this govt seem increasingly determined to set the clock back to 1980 Without all those pesky bits like unions, social safety nets, black and marginalised peoples wanting their story told, and having to learn non Anglo names when interveiwing for graduate programs.

we ain’t going back there, no matter how much dyspepsia Tudge, Goward and others summon. They are on the wrong side of history.

 

[Crankyhawk]

That you didnt start at the start of the schmozzle says you are not dinkum. You are looking for a political stunt & are happy with anything that delivers that scalp. That a person is required to take legal action to attempt to prove their innocence does not reflect well on the standard of justice being meted out in Australia.
I have never defended Porter from the allegations and I do support strongly the presumption of innocence, that you seem so keen to reject at any level.

that a person can take massive anonymous donations to meet costs of said legal action and that is all ok in your book speaks volumes about your accepted standards of integrity and probity.

 

[Magruder]

Well they should have been informed about the Federal Parliamentary disclosure rules relating to political donations shouldn't they? I mean, that is just a non-argument. That Porter (and you) are trying to use it as an excuse for non-disclosure of a million dollars given to him for his personal and private personal use is just utter tripe.

And maybe he/she/they don't a toss about how the money is to be used by Porter - because after all that is not the issue here.

The issue is that someone or some persons gave a million dollars to a senior government politician, who was until very recently this country's Attorney General, for his personal use and the government has allowed the former Attorney General and recipient of that money to keep those names secret.

Why would someone make such a donation? Is it to seek personal favour in the future from the former Attorney General, his associates or this government? Or is it a pay off for services rendered in the past? A wealthy business associate perhaps? An agent for a foreign government perhaps? A criminal syndicate perhaps?

And it is simply beyond belief that those million dollar donors, having made such a generous donation to Mr Porter's personal expenses, would not be known to Mr Porter, or have it made known to Mr Porter just how supportive they have been to him.

Anyone who does not understand the potential for fraud and corruption that is involved here is a complete and utter idiot.

It's just completely unacceptable.

Not only does it legitimise possible corruption it virtually provides a procedural map for it.

Contemptuous.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I have Kwality on Ignore but from the responses on here on the last few pages it would appear he is doggedly determined to push the notion that there is nothing wrong with a politician receiving an anonymous donation in the region of a million dollars.

That's all you need to know folks. Kwality is trying to convince us there's nothing wrong with that. I have no idea why anyone would do that.

 

[Magruder]

I have Kwality on Ignore but from the responses on here on the last few pages it would appear he is doggedly determined to push the notion that there is nothing wrong with a politician receiving an anonymous donation in the region of a million dollars.

That's all you need to know folks. Kwality is trying to convince us there's nothing wrong with that. I have no idea why anyone would do that.

He has tried to link Porter's basic jurisprudential right to presumption of innocence in relation allegations of rape with his apparent right to receive large sums of money anonymously.

Doesn't matter how often I ask him to explain the connection between the two things...

 

[Burro]

Anybody know what are the rules for political protests in Vic and NSW? Peacful and with good taste of course but also blunt and to the point. Do you need to get a permit or is that linked to the number of people?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

He has tried to link Porter's basic jurisprudential right to presumption of innocence in relation allegations of rape with his apparent right to receive large sums of money anonymously.

Doesn't matter how often I ask him to explain the connection between the two things...

The reason why I put him on Ignore. Never obnoxious like some others, just relentlessly obtuse.

 

[Ghost Patrol]

Isn't that what the Trump fans did? Anyway, I'd love to see you do it.

Most Trump fans couldn't find Canberra on a map

 

[QuietB]

I have Kwality on Ignore but from the responses on here on the last few pages it would appear he is doggedly determined to push the notion that there is nothing wrong with a politician receiving an anonymous donation in the region of a million dollars.

That's all you need to know folks. Kwality is trying to convince us there's nothing wrong with that. I have no idea why anyone would do that.

Because Porter is a victim.

Because the Liberals are victims.

Because Morrison is a victim.

Because Pell is a victim.

Most pathetic bunch of snowflakes you would ever be likely to meet.

They are lucky that cannot go back to the 1950’s like they want to because if they could they would not last one day before they were dealt with.

 

[Crankyhawk]

I have Kwality on Ignore but from the responses on here on the last few pages it would appear he is doggedly determined to push the notion that there is nothing wrong with a politician receiving an anonymous donation in the region of a million dollars.

That's all you need to know folks. Kwality is trying to convince us there's nothing wrong with that. I have no idea why anyone would do that.

from what he has said before its more sad. theres an acceptance of corruption and resignation that it will never change.