Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

Not so much corruption, the ideological madness that Robodebt was. Here is a summary of the examination of SFM.. What a smug bastard whi livesin his own world:

 

As fugitive journo says, it is another reason why the federal ICAC does need to have its hearings in public... He has basically admitted he knew it was illegal.

 

Oh, and another cog in the corruption wheel - these flippin institutes. Here is one on the Instiute of public affairs:

 

 

I seriosuly have to take a breather from youtube as I think it is depressing me...

 

  • Like 2
  • Agree 1
Posted

I recon the only reason he's still in parliament is because he wants to continue receiving an income and he can't find a job anywhere else. All he has to do is sit on a leather seat for three years, and the only people that can sack him are those voters in his electorate, and they can't do that until the next election. Easy money for him compared to the zero dollars he would make anywhere else. He's tainted goods; I can't see any company or corporation in their right mind offering him a job.

 

Probably his only hope post politics is to start up his own happy clappitorium and pass the hat around.

  • Like 1
  • Agree 1
Posted

Not that I have any liking for him, I am impressed at his ability to formulate answers on the spot to questions put to him by the Commission. It was almost as if he had been given a list of questions beforehand and had prepared his answers, but surely the Commission would not do that. 

 

In this case, I don't have any respect for the person, nor trust in his answers, but the ability to make complex or detailed speeches is something that is admirable. It is an ability that many respectable people have.

  • Agree 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

I did forget to mention, at least he didn't rely on "I cannot recall.. err.. arrr... ummm.. I cannot recall.." so, for that he has a smidgeon of more respect from me, than say Berejiklian and the array of other pollies who can't recall things not even days ago - whom I have no respect.

 

Although he was probably not given the questions ahead, I think it would be pretty easy for him to guess, given a) the publicity of Robodebt, and b) the preceding questions to witnesses, what was going to be asked of him, or at least the subject matter that was raised. As a minister who faces question time in parliament, he would have learned a trick or two about predicting what would be asked and have the information at hand - he admitted that he had taken notes of the relevant sections of the act he was being question about. So, I don't think it was all off the top of the head memory.. and there was some preparation - particularly as he took the answers off course from the question (he had to be reminded a few times in to answer the question, and that there would be opportunities later to address the issues he was raising that weren't in the question). I thought the commissioners comments, which to paraphrase, it may have been important to BS in his previous role, but this is a RC and there is no room for BS here.

 

  • Like 1
Posted
25 minutes ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

at least he didn't rely on "I cannot recall.. err.. arrr... ummm.. I cannot recall.."

In relation to my comment about his ability to power on through his responses, that is exemplified by the absence of the errs, ummm's and arrs, which are markers of hesitancy. The content that came out of his mouth might have well have been pure bullshit, but you have to admire his ability to polish a turd.

  • Like 1
  • Haha 1
Posted

I don't admire any of his deceptions and evasiveness. He's expert at avoiding answering questions and Doesn't "believe" he's EVER lied. He bullies people, Particularly women. Nev

  • Like 1
  • Agree 2
Posted

Big difference there. Dan got back In for a third term, despite the Biggest media attack yet and it's been unrelenting and obvious for years. Even the AGE which many RWNJ's regard as a socialist Rag. Only a minor majority vote for Pessuto who I regard as a good candidate. They couldn't all pull the same way in a tug of war..  Nev

  • Like 2
Posted

DA, Chairman D,  or whatever you want to call him, has more seats now than the Danslide, despite surrenderign 6% of the primary vote. Again, I think it calls into question the preferential system.. but doesn't rule it out as the most representative system.

 

I recall during the pandemic, he was pretty hot on making - or at least allowing decisions. His governbment has had their fair share of stuff ups.. But, sheesh, the main opposition - I am shre Frdenhamburger probably had a few reservations, too.

 

FWIW, which is not much.. I was talking to a work colleague today.. never been to Vic, but had a flat in the CBD for a while.. which she surrendered as part of the divorce settlement to her ex hubbie. She asked ne my political affiliations, which I have an honest answer (haven't voted in a long time because non of them meet my criteria, but when they do, I vote for the one that does). Then she asked me about what I thought about Dan Andrews. I gave it to her as I give it here.. And Nev just replied.. And I mentioned to her that with the 6% reduction in primary votes, he managed to win one more seat than the "Danslide". Her response.. "Everyone is entitled to their opinon - BTW, I heard there were allegations of election fraud". My response.. "Yes, it is my opinion on the press, but the primary vote and seats won is fact.. BTW, I have not seen any reports in the MSM or social media of widespread election fraud.. " So, this Italian woman who married an Adelaide man and was dumped by him, she told be about 8 years ago.. managed to be conned by  whoever she subsribes to for news.

 

  • Informative 1
  • Confused 1
Posted (edited)

There  hasn't been a bigger Beat up on someone in Politics since the disgraceful way Julia Gillard was treated when PM. Friedenburg forgot he was a VICORIAN and LOST the safest  Federal  LIBERAL seat that exists. GET DAN was the official thrust. Nasty didn't go far this time. Enough people saw it for what it was. Victorian people tend to look a bit deeper that some States and will elect a Liberal gov't when it's run properly with enough talent preselected which is not infiltrated with some church nutters. You need Leaders like Rupert Hamer and Ted Bailleu. were.  Nev

Edited by facthunter
  • Informative 1
Posted
2 hours ago, Yenn said:

Old Man Emu admires his ability to polish the turd.

NO I DON'T!!!!

I made the unfortunate mistake of using as an example of a person who had the ability to formulate answers to particular questions under stressful circumstances, a person for whom very few have any trust or belief in what he says or does.

 

I was admiring the ability that some people have to power on through with responses, marked by the absence of the errs, ummm's and arrs, which are markers of hesitancy and inability to formulate a complete response while beginning to give it. I was not admiring the actual person from whom the example came. In footballing parlance, I was playing the ball, not the man.

  • Informative 1
Posted

Regarding politicians peppering their responses with “err and ahh”: Kevin Rudd impressed me with his clear, certain speaking style while in opposition but once in the hot seat became much more careful and hesitant, as would most of us.

Albo was pretty much the opposite- champion of “err and ahh” during the campaign. Didn’t impress me, but once elected he sounds much more confidant.

  • Agree 1
Posted
3 hours ago, Jerry_Atrick said:

DA, Chairman D,  or whatever you want to call him, has more seats now than the Danslide, despite surrenderign 6% of the primary vote. Again, I think it calls into question the preferential system.. but doesn't rule it out as the most representative system.

Jerry, I'm not so sure preferences are to blame for that.  My understand is that most of the swing away from Labor was in safe margin LNP seats. In other words, Labor got the votes in the seats that mattered and lost votes in seats that they were never going to win anyway. The LNP needed to do better in more marginal seats, but instead got their swing where they didn't need it. Preaching to the converted, maybe.

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

They know that but obviously did not address it well. My take is that people voted Teal and then Labor. In other words anything but Libs. They see it as a disaster so why not believe what the losers have decided. NASTY didn't work so believing your own BS is a no go.. Dead set blue ribbon liberal seats were lost . The NEW leader just scraped in in Hawthorne in late counting. Nev

  • Informative 1
Posted
4 hours ago, willedoo said:

Jerry, I'm not so sure preferences are to blame for that.  My understand is that most of the swing away from Labor was in safe margin LNP seats. In other words, Labor got the votes in the seats that mattered and lost votes in seats that they were never going to win anyway. The LNP needed to do better in more marginal seats, but instead got their swing where they didn't need it. Preaching to the converted, maybe.

Thanks, Willy.. Had taken leave of the ol' senses when I wrote that...

  • Like 1
  • Informative 1
Posted

Comments by people looking a bit deeper into it were along the lines that the behaviour was from more thinking and educated people who voted  the preferences THEY wanted rather than follow a card.. Nev

  • 2 months later...
Posted

Am I right in getting a "little" worried with where society is heading? When one looks at how Friendly Jordies and Christo Langkar were targeted by the fixated persons' unit allegedly for political rather than terrorist reasons, and now, it appears, police are willing risk to perjuring themselves in court for what is a demonstration (and a magistrate willing to uphold it): https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-03-15/nsw-court-climate-change-protester-jail-sentence-overturned/102097354.

 

And there was a story about a rather pedantic case of pursuing someone who converted a unicycle into a motobility aid, and had the case finally withdrawn as having no chance of success and the police then warning him if he rides it again, they will arrest him again.. for a case that a second time will have no chance of success.

 

Was Australia always like this? Yeah - there were odd occasions this happened in the past, but nowhere near as often as is reported now. Maybe I am looking at it through rose coloured glasses?

 

 

  • Informative 2

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...