Australian Politics Forum

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #45 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:06am

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:52am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:24am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 7:04am:

cods wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

oh just another DOOM AND GLOOM get the BITCH MISOGYNIST thread.. by the usual suspects..

Nothing to do with misogyny.

She's a low life human being.

Her gender is completely irrelevant.

Yes it IS relevant.

And it IS relevant ONLY to YOU.

Incorrect.

Stop being such a sexist.

She's being criticised as a human being, not as a woman.

No matter what genitalia she may (or may not) have, she is a nasty piece of work.

' Lawyer Peter Gordon told Australian Doctor magazine in 2007: "We had to fight even for the right of dying cancer victims to get a speedy trial. I recall sitting in the WA Supreme Court in an interlocutory hearing for the test cases involving Wittenoom miners Mr Peter Heys and Mr Tim Barrow. CSR was represented by Ms Julie Bishop (then Julie Gillon). (She) was rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying." '

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/julie-bishops-time-as-a-solicitor-...

What a horrid human being.

No. Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language.

I am having some trouble finding these allegedly sexist remarks. Please highlight them.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

aussie100percent

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 565
Gender: male

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #46 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:18am

Bam wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:06am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:52am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:24am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 7:04am:

cods wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

oh just another DOOM AND GLOOM get the BITCH MISOGYNIST thread.. by the usual suspects..

Nothing to do with misogyny.

She's a low life human being.

Her gender is completely irrelevant.

Yes it IS relevant.

And it IS relevant ONLY to YOU.

Incorrect.

Stop being such a sexist.

She's being criticised as a human being, not as a woman.

No matter what genitalia she may (or may not) have, she is a nasty piece of work.

' Lawyer Peter Gordon told Australian Doctor magazine in 2007: "We had to fight even for the right of dying cancer victims to get a speedy trial. I recall sitting in the WA Supreme Court in an interlocutory hearing for the test cases involving Wittenoom miners Mr Peter Heys and Mr Tim Barrow. CSR was represented by Ms Julie Bishop (then Julie Gillon). (She) was rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying." '

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/julie-bishops-time-as-a-solicitor-...

What a horrid human being.

No. Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language.

I am having some trouble finding these allegedly sexist remarks. Please highlight them.

Post #15 #31 to start num nuts Angry

Back to top

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #47 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:23am

mariacostel wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:03am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:52am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:24am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 7:04am:

cods wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

oh just another DOOM AND GLOOM get the BITCH MISOGYNIST thread.. by the usual suspects..

Nothing to do with misogyny.

She's a low life human being.

Her gender is completely irrelevant.

Yes it IS relevant.

And it IS relevant ONLY to YOU.

Incorrect.

Stop being such a sexist.

She's being criticised as a human being, not as a woman.

No matter what genitalia she may (or may not) have, she is a nasty piece of work.

' Lawyer Peter Gordon told Australian Doctor magazine in 2007: "We had to fight even for the right of dying cancer victims to get a speedy trial. I recall sitting in the WA Supreme Court in an interlocutory hearing for the test cases involving Wittenoom miners Mr Peter Heys and Mr Tim Barrow. CSR was represented by Ms Julie Bishop (then Julie Gillon). (She) was rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying." '

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/julie-bishops-time-as-a-solicitor-...

What a horrid human being.

No. Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language.

Well said. I would guess that you Lisa would have experienced - as I have - the fear and hatred of powerful and successful women by some men - almost entirely under achievers.

Yep!

Under achievers with small pippies.

And don't laugh. I'm being serious here.

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139947
Gender: male

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #48 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:26am

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:52am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:24am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 7:04am:

cods wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

oh just another DOOM AND GLOOM get the BITCH MISOGYNIST thread.. by the usual suspects..

Nothing to do with misogyny.

She's a low life human being.

Her gender is completely irrelevant.

Yes it IS relevant.

And it IS relevant ONLY to YOU.

Incorrect.

Stop being such a sexist.

She's being criticised as a human being, not as a woman.

No matter what genitalia she may (or may not) have, she is a nasty piece of work.

' Lawyer Peter Gordon told Australian Doctor magazine in 2007: "We had to fight even for the right of dying cancer victims to get a speedy trial. I recall sitting in the WA Supreme Court in an interlocutory hearing for the test cases involving Wittenoom miners Mr Peter Heys and Mr Tim Barrow. CSR was represented by Ms Julie Bishop (then Julie Gillon). (She) was rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying." '

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/julie-bishops-time-as-a-solicitor-...

What a horrid human being.

No. Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language.

Stop being so sexist.

Her gender has absolutely nothing to do with the criticism she is receiving in here.

She is being criticised for being a vile human being.

Why must you always bring gender into the mix?

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139947
Gender: male

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #49 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:28am

aussie100percent wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:18am:

Bam wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:06am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:52am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:24am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 7:04am:

cods wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

oh just another DOOM AND GLOOM get the BITCH MISOGYNIST thread.. by the usual suspects..

Nothing to do with misogyny.

She's a low life human being.

Her gender is completely irrelevant.

Yes it IS relevant.

And it IS relevant ONLY to YOU.

Incorrect.

Stop being such a sexist.

She's being criticised as a human being, not as a woman.

No matter what genitalia she may (or may not) have, she is a nasty piece of work.

' Lawyer Peter Gordon told Australian Doctor magazine in 2007: "We had to fight even for the right of dying cancer victims to get a speedy trial. I recall sitting in the WA Supreme Court in an interlocutory hearing for the test cases involving Wittenoom miners Mr Peter Heys and Mr Tim Barrow. CSR was represented by Ms Julie Bishop (then Julie Gillon). (She) was rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying." '

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/julie-bishops-time-as-a-solicitor-...

What a horrid human being.

No. Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language.

I am having some trouble finding these allegedly sexist remarks. Please highlight them.

Post #15 #31 to start num nuts Angry

Look again.

Those aren't my posts.

Back to top

IP Logged

aussie100percent

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 565
Gender: male

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #50 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:32am

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:28am:

aussie100percent wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:18am:

Bam wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:06am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:52am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:24am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 7:04am:

cods wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

oh just another DOOM AND GLOOM get the BITCH MISOGYNIST thread.. by the usual suspects..

Nothing to do with misogyny.

She's a low life human being.

Her gender is completely irrelevant.

Yes it IS relevant.

And it IS relevant ONLY to YOU.

Incorrect.

Stop being such a sexist.

She's being criticised as a human being, not as a woman.

No matter what genitalia she may (or may not) have, she is a nasty piece of work.

' Lawyer Peter Gordon told Australian Doctor magazine in 2007: "We had to fight even for the right of dying cancer victims to get a speedy trial. I recall sitting in the WA Supreme Court in an interlocutory hearing for the test cases involving Wittenoom miners Mr Peter Heys and Mr Tim Barrow. CSR was represented by Ms Julie Bishop (then Julie Gillon). (She) was rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying." '

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/julie-bishops-time-as-a-solicitor-...

What a horrid human being.

No. Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language.

I am having some trouble finding these allegedly sexist remarks. Please highlight them.

Post #15 #31 to start num nuts Angry

Look again.

Those aren't my posts.

Who said they were knuckle dragger

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139947
Gender: male

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #51 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:39am

aussie100percent wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:32am:

Who said they were knuckle dragger

Please try to follow the thread.

It makes it much easier for everyone else.

Lisa, in a direct reply to one of my posts, said that I (greggerypeccary) was being sexist.

Her exact words were: "Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language."

Bam, wanting to see how I was being sexist, then said: "I am having some trouble finding these allegedly sexist remarks. Please highlight them."

And then you said: "Post #15 #31 to start num nuts".

The only problem is, they aren't my posts.

Capiche?

Back to top

IP Logged

aussie100percent

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 565
Gender: male

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #52 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:42am

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:39am:

aussie100percent wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:32am:

Who said they were knuckle dragger

Please try to follow the thread.

It makes it much easier for everyone else.

Lisa, in a direct reply to one of my posts, said that I (greggerypeccary) was being sexist.

Her exact words were: "Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language."

Bam, wanting to see how I was being sexist, then said: "I am having some trouble finding these allegedly sexist remarks. Please highlight them."

And then you said: "Post #15 #31 to start num nuts".

The only problem is, they aren't my posts.

Capiche?

So what nugget

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139947
Gender: male

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #53 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:47am

aussie100percent wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:42am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:39am:

aussie100percent wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:32am:

Who said they were knuckle dragger

Please try to follow the thread.

It makes it much easier for everyone else.

Lisa, in a direct reply to one of my posts, said that I (greggerypeccary) was being sexist.

Her exact words were: "Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language."

Bam, wanting to see how I was being sexist, then said: "I am having some trouble finding these allegedly sexist remarks. Please highlight them."

And then you said: "Post #15 #31 to start num nuts".

The only problem is, they aren't my posts.

Capiche?

So what nugget

The 'so what' is, you are the one who said they were my posts.

"Who said they were knuckle dragger"?

You did.

Back to top

IP Logged

Lisa Jones

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 39047
Sydney
Gender: female

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #54 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 11:12am

aussie100percent wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:18am:

Bam wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:06am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:52am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:24am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 7:04am:

cods wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

oh just another DOOM AND GLOOM get the BITCH MISOGYNIST thread.. by the usual suspects..

Nothing to do with misogyny.

She's a low life human being.

Her gender is completely irrelevant.

Yes it IS relevant.

And it IS relevant ONLY to YOU.

Incorrect.

Stop being such a sexist.

She's being criticised as a human being, not as a woman.

No matter what genitalia she may (or may not) have, she is a nasty piece of work.

' Lawyer Peter Gordon told Australian Doctor magazine in 2007: "We had to fight even for the right of dying cancer victims to get a speedy trial. I recall sitting in the WA Supreme Court in an interlocutory hearing for the test cases involving Wittenoom miners Mr Peter Heys and Mr Tim Barrow. CSR was represented by Ms Julie Bishop (then Julie Gillon). (She) was rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying." '

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/julie-bishops-time-as-a-solicitor-...

What a horrid human being.

No. Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language.

I am having some trouble finding these allegedly sexist remarks. Please highlight them.

Post #15 #31 to start num nuts Angry

No let him figure it out himself.

It will give him something to do for the day.

Back to top

If I let myself be bought then I am no longer free.

HYPATIA - Greek philosopher, mathematician and astronomer (370 - 415)

IP Logged

Jovial Monk Gold Member Offline Dogs not cats! Posts: 47929 Gender:	Re: Julie Bishop Reply #55 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 11:30am So dear Lisa has no idea. BTW, a new thread in Fermentations you might like to look at, dear Lisa.
Back to top	Get the vaxx! 💉💉 If you don’t like abortions ignore them like you do school shootings. IP Logged

Bam

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 21905
Gender: male

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #56 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 11:39am

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:39am:

aussie100percent wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:32am:

Who said they were knuckle dragger

Please try to follow the thread.

It makes it much easier for everyone else.

Lisa, in a direct reply to one of my posts, said that I (greggerypeccary) was being sexist.

Her exact words were: "Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language."

Bam, wanting to see how I was being sexist, then said: "I am having some trouble finding these allegedly sexist remarks. Please highlight them."

And then you said: "Post #15 #31 to start num nuts".

The only problem is, they aren't my posts.

Capiche?

It's best to ignore the trolls.

Back to top

You are not entitled to your opinion. You are only entitled to hold opinions that you can defend through sound, reasoned argument.

IP Logged

aussie100percent

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 565
Gender: male

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #57 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 11:55am

Bam wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 11:39am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:39am:

aussie100percent wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:32am:

Who said they were knuckle dragger

Please try to follow the thread.

It makes it much easier for everyone else.

Lisa, in a direct reply to one of my posts, said that I (greggerypeccary) was being sexist.

Her exact words were: "Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language."

Bam, wanting to see how I was being sexist, then said: "I am having some trouble finding these allegedly sexist remarks. Please highlight them."

And then you said: "Post #15 #31 to start num nuts".

The only problem is, they aren't my posts.

Capiche?

It's best to ignore the trolls.

You on ignore Grin

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 139947
Gender: male

Re: Julie Bishop
Reply #58 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 12:06pm

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 11:12am:

aussie100percent wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:18am:

Bam wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 10:06am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:52am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 9:24am:

Lisa Jones wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 8:10am:

greggerypeccary wrote on Oct 1^st, 2015 at 7:04am:

cods wrote on Sep 30^th, 2015 at 7:21pm:

oh just another DOOM AND GLOOM get the BITCH MISOGYNIST thread.. by the usual suspects..

Nothing to do with misogyny.

She's a low life human being.

Her gender is completely irrelevant.

Yes it IS relevant.

And it IS relevant ONLY to YOU.

Incorrect.

Stop being such a sexist.

She's being criticised as a human being, not as a woman.

No matter what genitalia she may (or may not) have, she is a nasty piece of work.

' Lawyer Peter Gordon told Australian Doctor magazine in 2007: "We had to fight even for the right of dying cancer victims to get a speedy trial. I recall sitting in the WA Supreme Court in an interlocutory hearing for the test cases involving Wittenoom miners Mr Peter Heys and Mr Tim Barrow. CSR was represented by Ms Julie Bishop (then Julie Gillon). (She) was rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying." '

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/julie-bishops-time-as-a-solicitor-...

What a horrid human being.

No. Not only are YOU being sexist...you're ALSO passively aggressively hiding it behind gender neutral language.

I am having some trouble finding these allegedly sexist remarks. Please highlight them.

Post #15 #31 to start num nuts Angry

No let him figure it out himself.

It will give him something to do for the day.

Those aren't my posts, Lisa.

So, please explain how I was being sexist.

Back to top

IP Logged

greggerypeccary Gold Member Offline Australian Politics Posts: 139947 Gender:	Re: Julie Bishop Reply #59 - Oct 1^st, 2015 at 12:17pm "Let's be upfront about this. I know Bernie is very sick, but just because a person is sick doesn't necessarily mean that he is pure of heart in all things," Abbott said. "Julie Bishop ... was rhetorically asking the court why workers should be entitled to jump court queues just because they were dying."
Back to top	IP Logged