Simple question was posed in Parliament today.....

Who does the Prime Minister believe - the FWA or Thomson?

She must make her position known because of she believed the FWA then she must reject Thomson's vote. If she believe Thomson then she must explain why her brain child (FWA) has failed so miserably!!

Isn't it good to see the alleged 'enlightened' party tearing itself to pieces.

So much for her pledge that her government would be open, transparent and accountable...

Armchair_Politician wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 8:11pm:

So much for her pledge that her government would be open, transparent and accountable...

Well they are very transparent. Thats one. She just didnt say she meant transparently incompetent.

Why doesn't Abbott bite the bullet and put a vote of no confidence monition against the government instead of the B/S he is going on with or hasn't he got the balls to do it

wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 8:33pm:

Why doesn't Abbott bite the bullet and put a vote of no confidence monition against the government instead of the B/S he is going on with or hasn't he got the balls to do it

Because he knows that at present such a vote would fail due to the support the ALP enjoyes from those idiotic Independents.

Bet she believes that Thomson's last statments are correct.

Dnarever wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 8:57pm:

Bet she believes that Thomson's last statments are correct.

Bet she believes she didn't lie about promising not to introduce a carbon tax at the last election!

Maqqa wrote on May 24^th, 2012 at 7:39pm:

Simple question was posed in Parliament today..... Who does the Prime Minister believe - the FWA or Thomson? She must make her position known because of she believed the FWA then she must reject Thomson's vote. If she believe Thomson then she must explain why her brain child (FWA) has failed so miserably!!

She doesnt have to answer that. Its either prejudice one way or the other or its personal. Either way she doesnt have to answer. Abbott had no right to even ask it. She will only answer the official position that she doesnt know until theres an investigation if she is pushed.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 7:35am:

Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 7:39pm: Simple question was posed in Parliament today..... Who does the Prime Minister believe - the FWA or Thomson? She must make her position known because of she believed the FWA then she must reject Thomson's vote. If she believe Thomson then she must explain why her brain child (FWA) has failed so miserably!! She doesnt have to answer that. Its either prejudice one way or the other or its personal. Either way she doesnt have to answer. Abbott had no right to even ask it. She will only answer the official position that she doesnt know until theres an investigation if she is pushed. SOB

She has to tell us if she fully supports FWA. We know she doesnt fully support thomson because she kicked him out of labor with guilty until proven innocent prejudice.

progressiveslol wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 7:41am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:35am: Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 7:39pm: Simple question was posed in Parliament today..... Who does the Prime Minister believe - the FWA or Thomson? She must make her position known because of she believed the FWA then she must reject Thomson's vote. If she believe Thomson then she must explain why her brain child (FWA) has failed so miserably!! She doesnt have to answer that. Its either prejudice one way or the other or its personal. Either way she doesnt have to answer. Abbott had no right to even ask it. She will only answer the official position that she doesnt know until theres an investigation if she is pushed. SOB She has to tell us if she fully supports FWA. We know she doesnt fully support thomson because she kicked him out of labor with guilty until proven innocent prejudice.

No she doesnt. There are allegations against them (or @ least the person who did the report). Not only that but nobody has any "findings" yet on FWA so she cant make a decision.

SOB

A PM of character would have acted on this a long time ago. She will never do anything that risks her job as PM - nothing. and Windsor - that snake - will never vote against this govt for the same reason. Both spineless amoral cretins.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 8:44am:

progressiveslol wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:41am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:35am: Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 7:39pm: Simple question was posed in Parliament today..... Who does the Prime Minister believe - the FWA or Thomson? She must make her position known because of she believed the FWA then she must reject Thomson's vote. If she believe Thomson then she must explain why her brain child (FWA) has failed so miserably!! She doesnt have to answer that. Its either prejudice one way or the other or its personal. Either way she doesnt have to answer. Abbott had no right to even ask it. She will only answer the official position that she doesnt know until theres an investigation if she is pushed. SOB She has to tell us if she fully supports FWA. We know she doesnt fully support thomson because she kicked him out of labor with guilty until proven innocent prejudice. No she doesnt. There are allegations against them (or @ least the person who did the report). Not only that but nobody has any "findings" yet on FWA so she cant make a decision. SOB

That is the beauty of these legislated bodies - their findings makes you guilty.

If you don't like it - tough - take them to court.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 7:35am:

Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 7:39pm: Simple question was posed in Parliament today..... Who does the Prime Minister believe - the FWA or Thomson? She must make her position known because of she believed the FWA then she must reject Thomson's vote. If she believe Thomson then she must explain why her brain child (FWA) has failed so miserably!! She doesnt have to answer that. Its either prejudice one way or the other or its personal. Either way she doesnt have to answer. Abbott had no right to even ask it. She will only answer the official position that she doesnt know until theres an investigation if she is pushed. SOB

One way it's because she needs his vote and the other way is because she would have to admit the department she set up is a shamble

Maqqa wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 9:04am:

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:35am: Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 7:39pm: Simple question was posed in Parliament today..... Who does the Prime Minister believe - the FWA or Thomson? She must make her position known because of she believed the FWA then she must reject Thomson's vote. If she believe Thomson then she must explain why her brain child (FWA) has failed so miserably!! She doesnt have to answer that. Its either prejudice one way or the other or its personal. Either way she doesnt have to answer. Abbott had no right to even ask it. She will only answer the official position that she doesnt know until theres an investigation if she is pushed. SOB One way it's because she needs his vote and the other way is because she would have to admit the department she set up is a shamble

I am sure that comes into it too (especially since thats why the questionis asked) but legally she doesnt have to answer.

SOB

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 9:25am:

Maqqa wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:04am: Sir Spot of Borg wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 7:35am: Maqqa wrote on May 24th, 2012 at 7:39pm: Simple question was posed in Parliament today..... Who does the Prime Minister believe - the FWA or Thomson? She must make her position known because of she believed the FWA then she must reject Thomson's vote. If she believe Thomson then she must explain why her brain child (FWA) has failed so miserably!! She doesnt have to answer that. Its either prejudice one way or the other or its personal. Either way she doesnt have to answer. Abbott had no right to even ask it. She will only answer the official position that she doesnt know until theres an investigation if she is pushed. SOB One way it's because she needs his vote and the other way is because she would have to admit the department she set up is a shamble I am sure that comes into it too (especially since thats why the questionis asked) but legally she doesnt have to answer. SOB

too much interest in legal requirement and far too little interest in proper and functional behaviour of those in high-office.

Sooo..now we have the same people repeating the same stuff in 9 threads
Ya couldn't all stick with one thread on the same topic?

adelcrow wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

Sooo..now we have the same people repeating the same stuff in 9 threads Ya couldn't all stick with one thread on the same topic?

you need a moderator for that. know any?

wouldnt you like to be a fly on the wall of the bunker?? I bet its a whole different story down there.

I am not sure about her position on saving her integrity....which realy went out the door a long time ago..I mean he has shifted towards the door  he is suspended from the ALP.. shorten has called for the HSU you be dismissed from the ACTU.. someone else has called for the HSU to be scraped all together..its a blot on all unions..

no one seems to be questioning all these side affects..

I mean can you really point the finger at a THING and not a person????..did this all evolve by itself?

every man and his dog is saying the HSU stinks its been run by a bunch of crims..

yet no one wants to point a finger at anyone, if you leave Abbott aside that is.

somewhere along the line the PM is involved..

she cannot pretend for one moment she has not had a say in any of this..

is it time for ownership????????..

this I dont know..she is responsible though as PM thats where the buck stops.


and we have a right to be given answers..

i want to know WHY HASNT HE BEEN CHANGED WITH ANYTHING?

adelcrow wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 9:37am:

Sooo..now we have the same people repeating the same stuff in 9 threads Ya couldn't all stick with one thread on the same topic?

if it was about Abbott you would make it ten threads.

longweekend58 wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 9:39am:

adelcrow wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:37am: Sooo..now we have the same people repeating the same stuff in 9 threads Ya couldn't all stick with one thread on the same topic? you need a moderator for that. know any?

Im not one to complain to the mods..but i am finding it a tad wierd to be reading the exact same stuff over and over in heaps of different threads..its beginning to look like spam.

adelcrow wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 9:44am:

longweekend58 wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:39am: adelcrow wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:37am: Sooo..now we have the same people repeating the same stuff in 9 threads Ya couldn't all stick with one thread on the same topic? you need a moderator for that. know any? Im not one to complain to the mods..but i am finding it a tad wierd to be reading the exact same stuff over and over in heaps of different threads..its beginning to look like spam.

when you play on a forum that tolerates DRAH and his daily 9 new insane threads  you cant complain about 9 threads that at least have substance to them.

You could always have an enforced rule about such things... but that would require a moderator which of course we dont have. pinhead has run away and mozza doesnt even pretend to moderate evenhandedly.

longweekend58 wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 10:13am:

adelcrow wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:44am: longweekend58 wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:39am: adelcrow wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:37am: Sooo..now we have the same people repeating the same stuff in 9 threads Ya couldn't all stick with one thread on the same topic? you need a moderator for that. know any? Im not one to complain to the mods..but i am finding it a tad wierd to be reading the exact same stuff over and over in heaps of different threads..its beginning to look like spam. when you play on a forum that tolerates DRAH and his daily 9 new insane threads  you cant complain about 9 threads that at least have substance to them. You could always have an enforced rule about such things... but that would require a moderator which of course we dont have. pinhead has run away and mozza doesnt even pretend to moderate evenhandedly.

Substance? lol!

SOB

longweekend58 wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 10:13am:

adelcrow wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:44am: longweekend58 wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:39am: adelcrow wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:37am: Sooo..now we have the same people repeating the same stuff in 9 threads Ya couldn't all stick with one thread on the same topic? you need a moderator for that. know any? Im not one to complain to the mods..but i am finding it a tad wierd to be reading the exact same stuff over and over in heaps of different threads..its beginning to look like spam. when you play on a forum that tolerates DRAH and his daily 9 new insane threads  you cant complain about 9 threads that at least have substance to them. You could always have an enforced rule about such things... but that would require a moderator which of course we dont have. pinhead has run away and mozza doesnt even pretend to moderate evenhandedly.

Interesting point

I agree that there are too many threads and at times I am one of the culprits.

My reason for raising a new thread is I'd like to highlight specific points in a topic that is usually drowned out by spoilers

Spoilers are the ones who do not respond to a the thread's topic but rather drown it out with diversions and insults.

My threads are generally supported by a news article. Of course you don't need an article to start a valid thread.

So what differentiate my thread from someone like Greens

Greens actually have his own Twitter account that he prides himself on referencing how many threads he starts to further his political ideals.

longweekend58 wrote on May 25^th, 2012 at 10:13am:

adelcrow wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:44am: longweekend58 wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:39am: adelcrow wrote on May 25th, 2012 at 9:37am: Sooo..now we have the same people repeating the same stuff in 9 threads Ya couldn't all stick with one thread on the same topic? you need a moderator for that. know any? Im not one to complain to the mods..but i am finding it a tad wierd to be reading the exact same stuff over and over in heaps of different threads..its beginning to look like spam. when you play on a forum that tolerates DRAH and his daily 9 new insane threads  you cant complain about 9 threads that at least have substance to them. You could always have an enforced rule about such things... but that would require a moderator which of course we dont have. pinhead has run away and mozza doesnt even pretend to moderate evenhandedly.

Except that death says something different in each of the 9 threads. You righties don't have that much imagination and say exactly the same thing in all of them. Which means I end up having to post the same thing in multiple threads. How tedious! I mean... I've even had to set up a hotkey to save me having to type in

ANOTHER LIELONGTIME LIE!

each and every time. If there was one thread I wouldn't have to do that.