Prime Minister Poll

[U2Tigers]

I reckon if my kid had been blown up and I was living in a dodgy camp with no tucker and some child soldier was pointing an AK47 at me when i went to the well for some water to do the dishes, I wouldnt be contemplating Tony's legal interpretation too much.

I agree to the point, so why do they go through so many other countries. Surely one of them would do to escape their danger.

 

[U2Tigers]

Nah law is law. He claimed something was illegal. If it isn't illegal then any amount of agreeing can't make his comment right.

Look at the message, illegal or not, a lot would agree that not going through the correct procedures is the wrong way to come to this country.

 

[Rosy]

Look at the message, illegal or not, a lot would agree that not going through the correct procedures is the wrong way to come to this country.

Yep maybe but that has nothing to do with Tony's claims on the legal situation of the matter. You'd expect someone with aspirations to be prime minister of our country, and represent us on the world stage, to be informed about matters of importance before they mouth off about them. Maybe Tony is correct...as I said I don't know. If he's ill-informed on a matter that he places such importance on it would be a very poor reflection.

 

[U2Tigers]

Yep maybe but that has nothing to do with Tony's claims on the legal situation of the matter. You'd expect someone with aspirations to be prime minister of our country, and represent us on the world stage, to be informed about matters of importance before they mouth off about them.

disregard, i re-read the story again.

 

[Rosy]

but whos to say the others aren't wrong. I took it they would challenge it, not that it is a given they are right.

I've clearly indicated I don't know whether it's right or wrong and certainly haven't suggested anything is a given. What do you mean by "they would challenge it"?

I take the quote below as them having already challenged Tony's claim.

But ANU international law professor Don Rothwell said it was clear it is not illegal to enter Australia without a visa and seek asylum.

''Any person who arrives at Australia's borders, whether it be at an airport or harbour or being intercepted by navy patrols is entitled to present an asylum claim to Australia,'' he said

 

[U2Tigers]

I've clearly indicated I don't know whether it's right or wrong and certainly haven't suggested anything is a given. What do you mean by "they would challenge it"?

I take the quote below as them having already challenged Tony's claim.

Yeah, initially I took it that way, but went back an re-read it.

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Nah law is law. He claimed something was illegal. If it isn't illegal then any amount of agreeing can't make his comment right.

He lies all the time. We call them gaffes and somehow that makes it all right? It is a lie, Mr Abbott is knowingly lying to Australians who he thinks are too stupid to know that he is lying. A new kind of leader!

 

[Brodders17]

He lies all the time. We call them gaffes and somehow that makes it all right? It is a lie, Mr Abbott is knowingly lying to Australians who he thinks are too stupid to know that he is lying. A new kind of leader!

exactly.

 

[Liverpool]

He lies all the time. We call them gaffes and somehow that makes it all right? It is a lie, Mr Abbott is knowingly lying to Australians who he thinks are too stupid to know that he is lying. A new kind of leader!

Nothing new about a lying leader mate....just read the lead story in all the papers today about the union slush fund and the mortgage Gillard knows nothing about even though she was involved in the mortgage 2 years earlier.
Smoke....fire..........pants on fire

 

[KnightersRevenge]

Nothing new about a lying leader mate....just read the lead story in all the papers today about the union slush fund and the mortgage Gillard knows nothing about even though she was involved in the mortgage 2 years earlier.
Smoke....fire..........pants on fire

Naw. You still can't tell the difference between unfounded speculation and real and actual proof. There is video evidence of Tony's lies. There is only smoky back-room garbage with ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE in relation to Julia Gillard. If that satisfies you Livers, well and good.

 

[Brodders17]

Nothing new about a lying leader mate....just read the lead story in all the papers today about the union slush fund and the mortgage Gillard knows nothing about even though she was involved in the mortgage 2 years earlier.
Smoke....fire..........pants on fire

im pretty sure you've used Gillard's 'lies' as reason to bag her, yet for Abbott it is disregarded.

plus what Knighter has said.

 

[Rosy]

Nothing new about a lying leader mate....just read the lead story in all the papers today about the union slush fund and the mortgage Gillard knows nothing about even though she was involved in the mortgage 2 years earlier.
Smoke....fire..........pants on fire

Didn't see the lead story in all the papers. Was it The Gillard Facts according to Ralph-I'll hang anyone to save myself-Blewitt?

Plenty of smoke for sure but no flames though.

The Libs can't start a fire, they can't start a fire without a spark
This gun's Blewitt's for hire even if he's just dancing in the dark

 

[Brodders17]

clearly she has questions to answer.

 

[Rosy]

clearly she has questions to answer.

Maybe so but plenty of unsubstantiated allegations are being claimed as fact. It would be good if people either put up or shut up in reference to any actual wrong doing. Bring on the facts and charges if necessary.

 

[Baloo]

Don't see the attack on Gillard any differently to the attack on Abbott re misogyny. The parties are just throwing mud hoping it sticks while deflecting from their own accusations.

It's a good test to see whether the ALP have learnt how to deal with the Abbott attacks and manage them better.

It's a sad state of politics but it's all we've got at the moment.

 

[Brodders17]

Maybe so but plenty of unsubstantiated allegations are being claimed as fact. It would be good if people either put up or shut up in reference to any actual wrong doing. Bring on the facts and charges if necessary.

sorry i dont know what she has actually done, i was just repeating the standard coalition line. i think they, like me, dont actually know what the questions are, and Abbott admitted as much before it was decided he should stay out of this.

 

[jb03]

sorry i dont know what she has actually done, i was just repeating the standard coalition line. i think they, like me, dont actually know what the questions are, and Abbott admitted as much before it was decided he should stay out of this.

I can't even see why it even matters - it was ages ago. Who cares what she did and didn't do 17 odd years ago .

 

[Rosy]

Don't see the attack on Gillard any differently to the attack on Abbott re misogyny.

Heard on the 1pm ABC news that Bronwyn Bishop has back pedalled and now says Gillard didn't benefit from the slush fund as she'd been accused of.

 

[Brodders17]

I can't even see why it even matters - it was ages ago. Who cares what she did and didn't do 17 odd years ago .

mostly agree. If she, or anyone in parliament, committed a serious crimes, or acted in a way that was very unethical, then to me it would be worth investigating. all this is is an exercise in throwing mud in the hope it sticks. similar to the abbott wall punching affair.

 

[Baloo]

Heard on the 1pm ABC news that Bronwyn Bishop has back pedalled and now says Gillard didn't benefit from the slush fund as she'd been accused of.

I'm not sure why you quoted my post. Bishop's back pedalling has nothing to do with what I said.