Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[Moody]

Nice try. But Thomson's cougho flick was a small stone in a mountain. Your corporate taxi, it's the shortest sin in a long list?

What is wrong with Thomson is that he and his mates abused the trust of the very people he was supposed to protect. This isn't the vicar having a private slurp of the communion wine. This is the archbishop having a sex romp through the orphanage.

Do you want to talk about it, Skyring?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

...

I have recently benn on a US work trip and whilst there I used my corporate Amex to catch a taxi to a shopping outlet so I could buy the family some cheap brand-name bling. Should I be thrown in jail for this? Who wants to throw the first stone??


{Cue pathetic argument about how it's OK for us to rort the expense system, but they can't. I'm never sure who "they" are, but apparently others do.}


...

cast the first stone? well... I could. I have never (ever ever) used a company credit card for personal use. not once. going further I have never used a company public transport ticket for a personal journey. I haven't used the supplied mobile to make a personal call without paying for it (the only exception being to notify the family if working especially long overtime... but then that's a business call anyway). if I took a taxi for personal travel then I'd pay for it with my own credit card. who wouldn't?

 

[Moody]

cast the first stone? well... I could. I have never (ever ever) used a company credit card for personal use. not once. going further I have never used a company public transport ticket for a personal journey. I haven't used the supplied mobile to make a personal call without paying for it (the only exception being to notify the family if working especially long overtime... but then that's a business call anyway). if I took a taxi for personal travel then I'd pay for it with my own credit card. who wouldn't?

Firstly may I say congratulations on your new title of Dalai Lama, but in mitigation for my own sins may I say this. The work trip required me to leave home midday on Sunday and arrive back the same time the next Sunday. Apart from losing a complete weekend with my family, I also "lost" Anzac Day. A 20USD cab fare is small recompense indeed and I don't feel in the slightest bit remorseful about it. I don't think my company cares either, to be honest.

This in no way condones the serious offences that CT has been charged with, but whilst I have never personally ordered an in-room movie or raided the minibar, I don't see those offences as being worthy of police charges or hysterical headlines.

 

[Pushka]

Tony Abbott? Do I need to make a list for you? We can start with his violent behaviour towards women whilst at Uni and progress chronologically from there if you like. He has lied (or misled us if you insist) about many events in the past 35 years and therefore under your new code of behaviour should be unfit for office.

I agree!

Oh come on, really? That event seems to have been witnessed by people who weren't even there. He never touched the woman and even she has stated that. Against women? Plural? One woman has reported he punched a wall and that is interpreted as violence to women. He says he was just rude to her, and he was all of 18 years of age. If thats the best you can throw at him then you need to try harder.

Lying? Lying? where is the rofl icon when you need it.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Oh come on, really? That event seems to have been witnessed by people who weren't even there. He never touched the woman and even she has stated that. Against women? Plural? One woman has reported he punched a wall and that is interpreted as violence to women. He says he was just rude to her, and he was all of 18 years of age. If thats the best you can throw at him then you need to try harder.

Lying? Lying? where is there rofl icon when you need it.

the whole idea of propaganda is that people DO get taken in by it... I guess it has worked with some...

 

[Moody]

Oh come on, really? That event seems to have been witnessed by people who weren't even there..

You may wish to refer to Holes appear in Tony Abbott's account of 'wall-punching' incident | News.com.au

or maybe I saw Abbott throw punch, says former student


or this one (they don't like him!) Tony Abbott: university bigot and bully

He never touched the woman and even she has stated that. ..

True - he just physically intimidated her. So it's fine to do anything you like as long as you don't actually hit them? Sorry - the law isn't quite so moronic.

Against women? Plural? One woman has reported he punched a wall and that is interpreted as violence to women. He says he was just rude to her, and he was all of 18 years of age. If thats the best you can throw at him then you need to try harder...

Have you seen this? Abbott: I was charged with indecent assault - National - www.smh.com.au

You need to try harder ... or rather not quite so hard at your turd-polishing efforts.

Lying? Lying? where is the rofl icon when you need it.

I don't use childish icons - I use facts. Where are yours?

 

[Moody]

the whole idea of propaganda is that people DO get taken in by it... I guess it has worked with some...

Yep - you can say that again! Bribed anyone today, BTW?

 

[Skyring]

I don't use childish icons - I use facts. Where are yours?

i see innuendo and inference, no facts. I see IndependentAustralia, a most unreliable source, as Wikipedia would say.

If you can't find a respected source that says what you want plainly and accurately, but instead rely on opinion pieces, confected logic and synthesis to tell your story, then you are in a weaker position than those who are certain that Julia Gillard and her AWU slush fund make her unfit for high office.

 

[drron]

Well Moody I also go by facts and some people have different ones to yours.Now this is by a right winger but at least he has gone to the source material and David Marr has no answer-
Issue 181 | The Sydney Institute

 

[Pushka]

(Snip) True - he just physically intimidated her. So it's fine to do anything you like as long as you don't actually hit them? Sorry - the law isn't quite so moronic.
Have you seen this? Abbott: I was charged with indecent assault - National - www.smh.com.au
(Snip)
I don't use childish icons - I use facts. Where are yours?

Sorry, but touching someone on the back, with people there as witnesses while on stage for others to see does not constitute indecent assault and backs up his story. What a pathetic attempt by Latham. Even labor wants him to go away. Bottom of barrel now.

You use childish words. The word turd is one that a ten year old would use.

You use opinion and try to dress them as facts. Nothing more. If some of us used the terminology for Gillard that you use for Abbott then you would be calling us for being personal or sexist. Bizarre.

Well Moody I also go by facts and some people have different ones to yours.Now this is by a right winger but at least he has gone to the source material and David Marr has no answer-
Issue 181 | The Sydney Institute

Oopsie. Don't you hate it when facts get in the way of the opportunity for an Abbot bash?

 

[Deleted member]

Well with your Commerce degree you will be able to explain why Norway is doing "much better" than Australia. Here is some research material :- The Norwegian model


Sounds a bit socialist, doesn't it?

Alaska has a similar fund.
Some years ago it was calculated that Alaska ( alone from the other 49 states) had enough financial reserves to run the state for about 25 years without receiving any tax revenue.
Call it socialisim if you like.
I call it saving for a rainy day

 

[Moody]

i see innuendo and inference, no facts. I see IndependentAustralia, a most unreliable source, as Wikipedia would say.

If you can't find a respected source that says what you want plainly and accurately, but instead rely on opinion pieces, confected logic and synthesis to tell your story, then you are in a weaker position than those who are certain that Julia Gillard and her AWU slush fund make her unfit for high office.

)

As JM would say - "YOU CANNOT BE SERIOUS!"

Did you bother to read the News or Fairfax stories? Are they not respected sources??


Now if you choose to believe that Barbara Ramjan is lying about the incident (a lie she told David Patch immediately after the event and continuously to her family thereafter), and also that a professor (who chooses to remain anonymous) lied that he was a direct witness to the punching incident THEN THAT'S FINE. No really .... you can choose to believe Tony Abbott's version of events (either the initial "I don't recall" or the subsequent "It definitely never happened" or both if you can resolve that particular dichotomy).

But doesn't the whole affair ring true to you? Tony Abbott had a certain reputation at Uni for boisterous behaviour and there were many unsavoury incidents that either directly involved him (indecent assault charges, criminal damage) or his so-called goon squad (indecent exposure). And where are all these witnesses on Tony's side that would back up his side of the story? If you were a neutral observer which version of events sounds more believable?

Citation needed, Skyring, for all your assertions. You are a very unreliable witness ....

 

[Moody]

Well Moody I also go by facts and some people have different ones to yours.Now this is by a right winger but at least he has gone to the source material and David Marr has no answer-
Issue 181 | The Sydney Institute

OK - I've read the artical (more than most would do it seems). Let me see if my understanding of it matches yours .....

In 2 different publications David Marr reported "the Wall Punch incident" as happening on 2 different dates in 1977. So that means it never happened? Brilliant deduction, Sherlock!

Or have I missed something???

 

[Moody]

Sorry, but touching someone on the back, with people there as witnesses while on stage for others to see does not constitute indecent assault and backs up his story. What a pathetic attempt by Latham. Even labor wants him to go away. Bottom of barrel now.

Why did he touch her at all? Why would she be so affronted and willing to have him charged if the incident was as harmless as he claims?? Why does Latham bringing it up years later change the fact that the incident occurred. Bottom of the barrel indeed!

You use childish words. The word turd is one that a ten year old would use.

Sorry if I have offended. But for your education :- Urban Dictionary: Polishing a turd and Mythbusters thought the phrase worthy of attention.

You use opinion and try to dress them as facts. Nothing more. If some of us used the terminology for Gillard that you use for Abbott then you would be calling us for being personal or sexist. Bizarre.

I have tried to source links for you and respond when others have. Do YOU have any facts for me, or just your well-worn-out opinion?

 

[drron]

Yes Sherlock you missed something.there was a lead there so here it is from a respectable source the SMH-
Abbott: I was charged with indecent assault - National - www.smh.com.au
Fellow students recall a champion of the right - National - www.smh.com.au
You see there was another book on Abbott back in 2004.Barbara Ramjan and David Patch were interviewed then and although you say they have always talked about the"punch"they didn't then.

Also sherlock in the 2 eyewitness accounts both say they were pushed aside by Tony's goons so followed them.But neither apparently saw the other.Also David Patch does not mention the goons being around.
On top of that why did the second witness take 6 months to come forward-your reliable SMH account is dated March this year.Funny it was after Gerard Henderson had already suggested the date of 7/9/77 was wrong.Then this fellow comes out of the blue and says he remembers it was 28/7/77 over 35 years later.Hmm.Then he says it was just 2 days after the birth of TAs illegitimate child.Of course we now know TA doesn't have such although he believed so then.So this fellow with an amazing memory doesn't remember the events of early 2005 when the press was full of the story that the DNA evidence showed TA wasn't the father.

Then of course both these accounts were about the sexual harrassment charge which you brought up as proof of his bad character.TA wasn't found Not guilty-the magistrate dismissed the charge saying it should never have been proceeded with.But I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to those on the right wing.

Of course there have been articles in that respected journal the SMH that give accounts of a different Tony Abbott saving a child being swept out to sea or rescuing kids from a fire-both with eyewitness accounts.Wouldn't fit your preconceived idea of the man though would it to mention those things.
The missing element of self-doubt

PS it wasn't 2 different publications that David Marr had 2 different dates it was between the first and second edition of his own book that the 2 dates are proposed.And as you read he has not said why he changed the dates.

 

[Skyring]

Interesting to see Kevin Rudd grandstanding again. He's catching the wave in support of marriage equality, one which Julia Gillard has missed. What's his game?

 

[amaroo]

Interesting to see Kevin Rudd grandstanding again. He's catching the wave in support of marriage equality, one which Julia Gillard has missed. What's his game?

Who cares?

 

[Moody]

Yes Sherlock you missed something.there was a lead there so here it is from a respectable source the SMH-
Abbott: I was charged with indecent assault - National - www.smh.com.au
Fellow students recall a champion of the right - National - www.smh.com.au.

Hmmmm..... some fairly damning words from those times. Not sure why you cited them in defence of Tony. Oh - I get it now. They are from the Fairfax press so must be a litany of lies.

You see there was another book on Abbott back in 2004.Barbara Ramjan and David Patch were interviewed then and although you say they have always talked about the"punch"they didn't then..

No - I didn't say that. Why are you lying? If you could be bothered to quote me you wouldn't look so foolish. Here it is if it is all too hard :-

"Now if you choose to believe that Barbara Ramjan is lying about the incident (a lie she told David Patch immediately after the event and continuously to her family thereafter)"

I made no claim that they have "always talked about the punch" publicly. Why did you say this?

Also sherlock in the 2 eyewitness accounts both say they were pushed aside by Tony's goons so followed them.But neither apparently saw the other.Also David Patch does not mention the goons being around.
On top of that why did the second witness take 6 months to come forward-your reliable SMH account is dated March this year.Funny it was after Gerard Henderson had already suggested the date of 7/9/77 was wrong.Then this fellow comes out of the blue and says he remembers it was 28/7/77 over 35 years later.Hmm.Then he says it was just 2 days after the birth of TAs illegitimate child.Of course we now know TA doesn't have such although he believed so then.So this fellow with an amazing memory doesn't remember the events of early 2005 when the press was full of the story that the DNA evidence showed TA wasn't the father.

Now you're starting to confuse me. Can you quote where the two witnesses made conflicting claims about the incident? And David Patch was nearby and did not witness the incident. He has only related what a shaken Barbara Ramjan told him immediately after the event.

The SMH report isn't dated March this year as far as I can see, but September last year when this all blew up in the media. I think there's something wrong with your browser.

And your convoluted argument that the witness should have said "after the birth of his illegitimate child who was then found to be not his after a 2005 DNA test" is really clutching at straws.

Then of course both these accounts were about the sexual harrassment charge which you brought up as proof of his bad character.TA wasn't found Not guilty-the magistrate dismissed the charge saying it should never have been proceeded with.But I guess innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to those on the right wing.

I was very exact in my statement ....here it is again :- " ... there were many unsavoury incidents that either directly involved him (indecent assault charges, criminal damage) or his so-called goon squad (indecent exposure)."

You can choose to believe TA's version of events ... like the fact that there were 7 people standing behind him who witnessed him never touching (sorry - only touching her on the back to let her know he was there). How you can do that when there are a plethora of claims made about similar behaviour is yours to defend.

TA has NOT been convicted of sexual assault - so that makes him a good person? Strange logic.... I suppose CT and IM and EO are all pillars of the community too in your eyes.

Of course there have been articles in that respected journal the SMH that give accounts of a different Tony Abbott saving a child being swept out to sea or rescuing kids from a fire-both with eyewitness accounts.Wouldn't fit your preconceived idea of the man though would it to mention those things.
The missing element of self-doubt .

Now this is totally random! He's done some good deeds so you can't criticise him? Is that what you are saying?? So Alan Bond is a hero and was never a corporate shyster? Peter Reith a great man rather rather than the fall guy for the "Children Overboard" election lie? All those priests have done such good work in the community that they should be allowed to have the odd fiddle??? Unbelievable!!!!

PS it wasn't 2 different publications that David Marr had 2 different dates it was between the first and second edition of his own book that the 2 dates are proposed.And as you read he has not said why he changed the dates..

This still has me puzzled. Can you explain why this is so important?

 

[Skyring]

Moody, when you're in a hole, stop digging.

Julia Gillard, Craig Thomson and a host of NSW Labor figures are way more unsavoury than Tony Abbott. If I use the same standards you apply to Coalition MPs.

I don't mind if you cheer for one sports team over another. Fine. But when you demand that your particular team should play by different rules than their opponents, you lose all pretence of objectivity and credibility. You are just making noise and waving your arms around.

Worse, people might start to think of you as a troll, deliberately speaking rubbish just to stir up emotions and get other members of the group angry and upset.

 

[drron]

Moody I am in awe of your ability to rationalise your preconceptions.

This still has me puzzled. Can you explain why this is so important?

An author changes the dates of the one episode that got the media's attention and it is not important?
Another scenario-all this was only raised after the Gillard AWU affair was raised again.This was the tit for that tat.Mark Latham in one of his saturday columns for the AFR put the two together.Sorry cant paste the link as behind a pay wall and we only got the saturday AFR thanks to VA.

Hmmmm..... some fairly damning words from those times. Not sure why you cited them in defence of Tony. Oh - I get it now. They are from the Fairfax press so must be a litany of lies.

Your bias has me ROTFLMAO

Now you're starting to confuse me. Can you quote where the two witnesses made conflicting claims about the incident? And David Patch was nearby and did not witness the incident. He has only related what a shaken Barbara Ramjan told him immediately after the event.

Both were shoved by Abbotts goons and immediately got up and followed.but no mention of either seeing the other shoved or being present to see "the punch"

But I will give you my hypothesis on what happened and why everyone may be telling the truth as they saw it,even TA.
The 2 witnesses followed the right wing goons because they were part of the left wing goons.
Barbara Ramjan says TA punched the wall on both sides of her head.The witnesses saw TA swing a punch.the second one says I saw TA raise his elbow above his head.Now does a boxer(which TA was at the time) punch like that?

So my scenario is that TA wanted to intimidate BR,also remember in one of the articles I quoted says that TA had been bashed at a student's conference,so he leant down to put his face in front of hers.Lifted his arms and put them on the wall beside her to stop her getting away and then told her,quite probably in explicit terms,that he was going to win the next election.
In that scenario BR could well have thought it was punches as she was scared,the witnesses would see TA raise his arm and TA would have no memory of throwing a punch as it certainly to a boxer not a punch.
Now it shows disrespect to women if TA did not treat males the same way.The evidence suggests he did.

And why do I mention his good deeds-surely an assessment of character should include all aspects?