Australian Politics Forum - Gillard's anti-father laws

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Gillard's anti-father laws
Reply #60 - Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:39pm

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

Anyway, where is the rest of this "pie"?

Like the muppet before you who was going to "take me down", i suspect you also have nothing

You asked for the legislation - I have provided the legislation as well as the date it was passed

You can suspect all you want but I have provided the information

If you are too stupid to read it from the article - here it is again

Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011

passed on 22 November 2011

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Gillard's anti-father laws
Reply #61 - Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:40pm

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

Anyway, where is the rest of this "pie"?

Like the muppet before you who was going to "take me down", i suspect you also have nothing

You are just too dumb. Firstly, you wouldnt answer my question, so no need to go further with you. Secondly I explained to you the meaning of bringing you down, but you are too dumb to get it even with spelling it out to you.

You are obviously that dog I think you are in trying to use uninformed manipulation of our interaction as well as calling a part of our society that has been down trodden, f wits, loser, crazies or there abouts.

Back to top

IP Logged

Infarction

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 509

Re: Gillard's anti-father laws
Reply #62 - Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:44pm

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:39pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

Anyway, where is the rest of this "pie"?

Like the muppet before you who was going to "take me down", i suspect you also have nothing

You asked for the legislation - I have provided the legislation as well as the date it was passed

You can suspect all you want but I have provided the information

If you are too stupid to read it from the article - here it is again

Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011

passed on 22 November 2011

Is that the "rest of your cake"?

Really?

Wow.. that was worth waiting for.

You couldn't even understand the point properly.

Providing a link to legislation which doesn't show what you claim it does isn't what i asked.

Do you have any more "cake"?

Back to top

IP Logged

Infarction

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 509

Re: Gillard's anti-father laws
Reply #63 - Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:45pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

Anyway, where is the rest of this "pie"?

Like the muppet before you who was going to "take me down", i suspect you also have nothing

You are just too dumb. Firstly, you wouldnt answer my question, so no need to go further with you. Secondly I explained to you the meaning of bringing you down, but you are too dumb to get it even with spelling it out to you.

You are obviously that dog I think you are in trying to use uninformed manipulation of our interaction as well as calling a part of our society that has been down trodden, f wits, loser, crazies or there abouts.

Again, just the lunatics on that web site.

Like your mate Maqqa, you are yet to prove any of your claims yet either.

I wonder why that is

Back to top

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Gillard's anti-father laws
Reply #64 - Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:46pm

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:40pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:37pm:

Anyway, where is the rest of this "pie"?

Like the muppet before you who was going to "take me down", i suspect you also have nothing

You are just too dumb. Firstly, you wouldnt answer my question, so no need to go further with you. Secondly I explained to you the meaning of bringing you down, but you are too dumb to get it even with spelling it out to you.

You are obviously that dog I think you are in trying to use uninformed manipulation of our interaction as well as calling a part of our society that has been down trodden, f wits, loser, crazies or there abouts.

prog

lefties know not to question my references

even ale, skip and others only voice their smear from afar rather than directly challenging it

once in awhile some leftie (like infrac) with dutch courage will challenge and get slapped down

the last slap down was buzz

bring it on leftards

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

Maqqa

Gold Member

Offline

14% - that low?!

Posts: 16000

Re: Gillard's anti-father laws
Reply #65 - Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:48pm

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:33pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 12:49pm:

Infarction wrote on Mar 20^th, 2013 at 5:26am:

So Maqqa

I have had the displeasure of looking at the website you cited as your source before, i have seen them label centrelink a terroris organisation and claim that the government has legislated to make prejury legal.

Lets just ignore that source.

Now, have you got a link to the bill/proposed legislation that actually shows that what your initial article says is going to happen, is indeed going to happen?

Or have you been sucked in by that blog because it suits your agenda to do so?

If you did alittle more digging into the story you would have seen the following story

The law was passed 22nd November 2011

Quote:

http://www.f4e.com.au/blog/2011/11/22/labors-male-hate-anti-family-law-amendment...

It will allow the court to deny contact, in most cases with the children’s father, based on nothing more than a claim that the mother “fears” abuse, whether or not there is any history of abuse, or whether any threatening behaviour occurred or is likely to occur.

Tonight the Senate passed the Family Law Legislation Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2011.

Labor senator Trish Crossin told the chamber the family law system doesn’t adequately protect children.

“It’s truly concerning that the family law system is failing our children.”

come on infrac

I've shoved the first piece of humble pie up your gob

provide the apology so I can not shove the rest of the pie up your gob

slap slap slap infrac

Back to top

Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number

IP Logged

corporate_whitey Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 8896 Archivist	Re: Gillard's anti-father laws Reply #66 - Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:49pm Imagine the depth of the evil of Atheists posting here day in and day out in the hopes of disenfranchising more of their fellow citizens from the national economy and disadvantaging them as much as possible...this is the ultimate evil of atheist populism and its motives...
Back to top	« Last Edit: Mar 20^th, 2013 at 1:56pm by corporate_whitey » World Wide Working Class Struggle IP Logged

Maqqa Gold Member Offline 14% - that low?! Posts: 16000	Re: Gillard's anti-father laws Reply #67 - Mar 20^th, 2013 at 2:09pm ok without an apology from infrac - I'll close down the 5 reference tabs I have from (1) Nick Xenophon (2) ComLaw (3) Attorney General Office (4) Family Courts Australia (5) Senate discussion transcript SLAP SLAP SLAP infrac
Back to top	Bill 14% is not the alcohol content of that wine. It's your poll number IP Logged

Infarction

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 509

Re: Gillard's anti-father laws
Reply #68 - Mar 21^st, 2013 at 5:44am

Hahaha

Yeah ok..

So instead of posting up the proof you have to "slap me down".. You choose just to post rubbish like slap slap?

Hahahahaha

You had no evidence, otherwise you would have posted it to enhance your argument since you seem determined to make it look like you are doing well here.

As i said earlier, you and the other muppet have been banging on with all sorts of rubbish, yet so far, neither of you have posted anything of substance.

Have you even looked at the act yet?

Seen the primary and secondary considerations? Noticed that what the child says is one of many things and how much weight given to the statement is based upon a range of factors relating to the childs age, capacity etc etc etc?

I am guessing not.

Better stick to slap slap slap type posts...

Back to top

IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Gillard's anti-father laws
Reply #69 - Mar 21^st, 2013 at 5:52am

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 5:44am:

Hahaha

Yeah ok..

So instead of posting up the proof you have to "slap me down".. You choose just to post rubbish like slap slap?

Hahahahaha

You had no evidence, otherwise you would have posted it to enhance your argument since you seem determined to make it look like you are doing well here.

As i said earlier, you and the other muppet have been banging on with all sorts of rubbish, yet so far, neither of you have posted anything of substance.

Have you even looked at the act yet?

Seen the primary and secondary considerations? Noticed that what the child says is one of many things and how much weight given to the statement is based upon a range of factors relating to the childs age, capacity etc etc etc?

I am guessing not.

Better stick to slap slap slap type posts...

Lets have another try with your credibility. What is the ratio of women getting full custody compared to men at around 2012 levels?

Back to top

IP Logged

Infarction Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 509	Re: Gillard's anti-father laws Reply #70 - Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:01am I don't know. You tell me.. And while you are at it, tell me how many of those did the father want full custody along the courts reasons why the Mother got the custody instead. A stat on who got what without any other info is meaningless.
Back to top	IP Logged

progressiveslol Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 17029	Re: Gillard's anti-father laws Reply #71 - Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:09am Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:01am: I don't know. You tell me.. And while you are at it, tell me how many of those did the father want full custody along the courts reasons why the Mother got the custody instead. A stat on who got what without any other info is meaningless. Didnt think you had a clue.
Back to top	IP Logged

Infarction Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 509	Re: Gillard's anti-father laws Reply #72 - Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:12am WTF? Is your argument I don't know what I am talking about because I couldn't quote one stat in isolation of any other meaningful information? Or is it that all you have is the one meaningless stat and not any supporting information to go with it ? This is your worst attempt at making a point yet.
Back to top	IP Logged

progressiveslol

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 17029

Re: Gillard's anti-father laws
Reply #73 - Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:14am

Infarction wrote on Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:12am:

WTF?

Is your argument I don't know what I am talking about because I couldn't quote one stat in isolation of any other meaningful information?

Or is it that all you have is the one meaningless stat and not any supporting information to go with it ?

This is your worst attempt at making a point yet.

Hey it works for you. I am all for equality. I just got my equal.

Back to top

IP Logged

Infarction Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 509	Re: Gillard's anti-father laws Reply #74 - Mar 21^st, 2013 at 6:51am Dear oh dear. Did you actually have a point to your earlier question that you were planning on making?
Back to top	IP Logged