The Daily Wire: Regime change? - The Daily Wire

Jump to content

  • 18 Pages +
  • « First
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • Last »

Regime change? (this time it's Fairfax and the ABC)

#161 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 15 September 2011 - 01:31 PM

I said:

please add your posts in support of your own local member of parliament doing doorstep interviews as they come or go from their preferred (legal) brothel.


View Postscotto, on 15 September 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

Fine with me


View PostGeorgeParsons, on 15 September 2011 - 01:15 PM, said:

Why should I be worried if my MP visits a brothel?


2 against 1.

I'm rapidly getting out of my depth here. :angry:
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#162 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 15 September 2011 - 01:42 PM

View Postscotto, on 15 September 2011 - 12:28 PM, said:

Remember the nasty 'outing' of a NSW MP last year? Plenty of ordinary people thought that the action of the reporter was on the nose - and the MP was married.


You must be referring to Wollongong's former Lord Mayor and NSW's former Minister for Transport.

He resigned of his own accord, though it's not clear just why.

Regretfully, the Hon Craig Thomson is unable to reach for the "homophobia" or "racist" defence, preferring instead to hide behind Mum's skirt.

Posted Image
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#163 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:30 PM

View Posticey, on 15 September 2011 - 01:42 PM, said:

You must be referring to Wollongong's former Lord Mayor and NSW's former Minister for Transport.

He resigned of his own accord, though it's not clear just why.

Regretfully, the Hon Craig Thomson is unable to reach for the "homophobia" or "racist" defence, preferring instead to hide behind Mum's skirt.

Good picture. Clearly, though, he resigned as he couldn't handle being outed and the consequences of this, don't play dumb.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#164 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 15 September 2011 - 02:36 PM

View Postscotto, on 15 September 2011 - 02:30 PM, said:

Good picture. Clearly, though, he resigned as he couldn't handle being outed and the consequences of this, don't play dumb.


Play dumb? I couldn't play dumb if my house was out of fire.

You need a quip along the lines of what he could have told his wife about his visit if she once used to do the laundry at the establishment.

No criminal acticity here though, hey scotto?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#165 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:41 PM

View Posticey, on 15 September 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

Play dumb? I couldn't play dumb if my house was out of fire.

In english, please.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#166 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:41 PM

View Posticey, on 15 September 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

No criminal acticity here though, hey scotto?

You're right.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#167 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 15 September 2011 - 03:42 PM

View Posticey, on 15 September 2011 - 02:36 PM, said:

You need a quip along the lines of what he could have told his wife about his visit if she once used to do the laundry at the establishment.

Clearly I don't know him or his wife well enough to comment. I think his statements at the time indicate that this comment of yours is in poor taste.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#168 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 15 September 2011 - 04:00 PM

I said:

Play dumb? I couldn't play dumb if my house was out of fire.

You need a quip along the lines of what he could have told his wife about his visit if she once used to do the laundry at the establishment.

No criminal activity here though, hey scotto?


View Postscotto, on 15 September 2011 - 03:42 PM, said:

Clearly I don't know him or his wife well enough to comment. I think his statements at the time indicate that this comment of yours is in poor taste.


To which of Thomson's notably few statements do you refer?

You're the one who introduced the notion of your wife's past experience in a brothel so I'm not sure where and when the taste went downhill.

At least the score on politicians in brothels has not gotten any worse.

2:1 .... any other voters?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#169 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 15 September 2011 - 04:48 PM

View Posticey, on 15 September 2011 - 04:00 PM, said:

To which of Thomson's notably few statements do you refer?

You're the one who introduced the notion of your wife's past experience in a brothel so I'm not sure where and when the taste went downhill.

At least the score on politicians in brothels has not gotten any worse.

2:1 .... any other voters?

I thought you were referring to NSW government minister, as I had been in my original comment.

My comment was about a hypothetical situation; yours was about a real person, whichever MP you were referring to.

Try to keep track of these things.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#170 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 15 September 2011 - 05:43 PM

View Postscotto, on 15 September 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

Try to keep track of these things.


:rolleyes:

Roger that. I'll do my best, but it does get tricky with all the shame and scandal in the ALP family.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#171 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 16 September 2011 - 10:19 AM

View Posticey, on 15 September 2011 - 12:16 PM, said:

One can't discuss morals or ethics because they are a can of worms? Give me a break.

Haha, you are so funny sometimes. You mention certain immoral activities as fit for discussion, I mention some more immoral activities, and suddenly immorality is not a fit topic of discussion? Make up your mind! Which is it, icey?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#172 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 16 September 2011 - 10:26 AM

View PostBam, on 16 September 2011 - 10:19 AM, said:

Haha, you are so funny sometimes. You mention certain immoral activities as fit for discussion, I mention some more immoral activities, and suddenly immorality is not a fit topic of discussion? Make up your mind! Which is it, icey?


Absolutely morals and ethics are fit for discussion! Which matter of morals did you erringly discern that I said was not to be discussed?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#173 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 16 September 2011 - 10:28 AM

View Posticey, on 15 September 2011 - 12:16 PM, said:

Let me say it clearly, Australians at large find the suggestion offensive

And your source for this vague claim is ...?

Quote

that (a) Thomson used $1000's of union funds for his own nefarious purposes

And I suppose you believe that businessmen working for publicly-listed companies have never, ever used shareholder funds for their own "nefarious purposes"? Abusing expense accounts is common in the world of business. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when it is a union account that is allegedly being abused in this way? Why the sudden concern over the welfare of union members? Is this a sudden change of heart for you, icey, that you would forevermore defend unions and their members from the forces of evil that would harm them?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#174 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 16 September 2011 - 10:47 AM

View PostBam, on 16 September 2011 - 10:28 AM, said:

And your source for this vague claim is ...?


Bam, I thought you did not like quotes out of context. Note the highlighted text below.

Quote

Let me say it clearly, Australians at large find the suggestion offensive that (a) Thomson used $1000's of union funds for his own nefarious purposes, and (b) to add insult to injury, the married union official destined to be an ALP pollie was frequenting brothels also at the expense of union members.

Now I could well be generalising unfairly, maybe I'm wrong. Everyone reading, if unpersuaded by my generalisation, please add your posts in support of your own local member of parliament doing doorstep interviews as they come or go from their preferred (legal) brothel.


View PostBam, on 16 September 2011 - 10:28 AM, said:

And I suppose you believe that businessmen working for publicly-listed companies have never, ever used shareholder funds for their own "nefarious purposes"? Abusing expense accounts is common in the world of business. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when it is a union account that is allegedly being abused in this way? Why the sudden concern over the welfare of union members? Is this a sudden change of heart for you, icey, that you would forevermore defend unions and their members from the forces of evil that would harm them?


Well you may have come out defending use of funds for nefarious purposes, but you've not yet put your hand up in support of MP's in brothels. Feel free to do so.

Abuse of constituents, union members or shareholders funds is unacceptble in any case. Probably all the more so for a non-profit making benevolent entity.

Why are you up in arms supporting the type of abuse that may well be common in your own circle of travel, but is not appreciated by union members?
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#175 Guest-fonzie

  • Group: Guests

Posted 16 September 2011 - 11:08 AM

View PostBam, on 16 September 2011 - 10:28 AM, said:

And your source for this vague claim is ...?

And I suppose you believe that businessmen working for publicly-listed companies have never, ever used shareholder funds for their own "nefarious purposes"? Abusing expense accounts is common in the world of business. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when it is a union account that is allegedly being abused in this way? Why the sudden concern over the welfare of union members? Is this a sudden change of heart for you, icey, that you would forevermore defend unions and their members from the forces of evil that would harm them?


Ummmm well...obviously??regardless of their position in the business world.. because at least one of the named alleged serial expense account abusers is a member of the government.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#176 User is offline   Bam 

  • Advanced Member
  • View blog
  • Group: Moderators
  • Posts: 3205
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationMelbourne

Posted 16 September 2011 - 11:25 AM

View Posticey, on 16 September 2011 - 10:47 AM, said:

Well you may have come out defending use of funds for nefarious purposes, but you've not yet put your hand up in support of MP's in brothels. Feel free to do so.

I'm not defending the use of funds in this case, instead I've been questioning why this particular case is important when misuse of other people's money exists in other places as well. There is a difference.

You may have noticed that I often question selective behaviour such as blatant hypocrisy or setting high standards for one's political opponents while being much more generous with the standards towards one's own. Your dismissive attitude to Abbott's many gaffes (when demonstrated) while asserting that Gillard makes gaffes (without elaborating) is a case in point.


Quote

Abuse of constituents, union members or shareholders funds is unacceptble in any case. Probably all the more so for a non-profit making benevolent entity.

Religious organisations are not immune to misuse of funds.

Quote

Why are you up in arms supporting the type of abuse that may well be common in your own circle of travel, but is not appreciated by union members?

I am questioning the blatant double standards, especially by members of the Liberal Party. It is blatant hypocrisy for the Liberals to be hounding Thomson so for something that happened before Parliament, when in government Peter Reith could get away scot-free with abusing taxpayer funds while a Minister. It's much easier when there's a single impartial code of conduct, rather than the Liberal Party's wet dream of strict conduct standards for the ALP and laissez-faire for the Liberal party and redneck Nationals.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

1

#177 User is offline   scotto 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • View blog
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 4300
  • Joined: 14-January 11
  • LocationNewcastle, NSW

Posted 16 September 2011 - 01:08 PM

View PostBam, on 16 September 2011 - 11:25 AM, said:

I am questioning the blatant double standards, especially by members of the Liberal Party. It is blatant hypocrisy for the Liberals to be hounding Thomson so for something that happened before Parliament, when in government Peter Reith could get away scot-free with abusing taxpayer funds while a Minister. It's much easier when there's a single impartial code of conduct, rather than the Liberal Party's wet dream of strict conduct standards for the ALP and laissez-faire for the Liberal party and redneck Nationals.

Couldn't agree more.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#178 User is offline   Trogdor 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 17-January 11

Posted 16 September 2011 - 01:17 PM

View PostBam, on 16 September 2011 - 10:28 AM, said:

And your source for this vague claim is ...?

And I suppose you believe that businessmen working for publicly-listed companies have never, ever used shareholder funds for their own "nefarious purposes"? Abusing expense accounts is common in the world of business. Why is it suddenly a bad thing when it is a union account that is allegedly being abused in this way? Why the sudden concern over the welfare of union members? Is this a sudden change of heart for you, icey, that you would forevermore defend unions and their members from the forces of evil that would harm them?



I don't speak for Icey, but business people who abuse funds are subject to judgement by the board and shareholders. If shareholders and investors decide the misuse is a problem they can take their funds elsewhere (Doesn't make it right BTW)

Union leaders who mis-use funds are stealing the money of the membership to do so. In some cases even joining another union isn't an option. It's the main reason I supported voluntary student unionism, after seeing the leadership when I was around campus blow funds like Charlie Sheen blows cocaine.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#179 User is offline   Trogdor 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 111
  • Joined: 17-January 11

Posted 16 September 2011 - 01:35 PM

THE union boss Michael Williamson failed to disclose that his son was using a Health Services Union building to run a recording studio.

In 2006 the HSU bought an almost $800,000 industrial building in Banksmeadow, near Sydney Airport. Two years later Mr Williamson's son, Chris, opened Studio 19, a recording and rehearsal studio in the industrial unit which he rents out on a commercial basis.

Chris Williamson is a bass guitarist with the band Overpass. According to its Facebook page, ''Studio 19 is an acoustically treated studio which prides itself on offering the highest level of audio production whilst providing excellent customer service to Australia's leading acts.''

Michael Williamson … president of the Health Services Union. Photo: Ben Rushton
There is no disclosure of this in the HSU's accounts, and union sources confirmed yesterday it was an uncommercial arrangement that had not been disclosed to or approved by the union.
http://www.smh.com.a...0915-1kc05.html

How long will Labor continue to support this scum? C'mon Julia and sack his useless hide now.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

#180 User is offline   icey 

  • Advanced Member
  • PipPipPip
  • Group: Members
  • Posts: 3501
  • Joined: 13-January 11
  • LocationBrisbane

Posted 17 September 2011 - 10:13 AM

View PostTrogdor, on 16 September 2011 - 01:35 PM, said:

How long will Labor continue to support this scum? C'mon Julia and sack his useless hide now.


And even more details from the same journalist in todays SMH.

Hanging by a thread

A small sample:

Quote

Approval was requested to rubber-stamp cheque No. 16319 for the amount of $100,000 which had been paid to Access Focus in July 2009. The Herald has learnt that both before and after this date Access Focus received large payments. The mystery for many at the meeting was what Access Focus actually did. Union insiders told the Herald that ongoing requests as to why this entity was receiving such large sums have been met with obfuscation by the boss. Attempts by underlings to view the financial records of the union were stymied by Williamson, who controlled the finance department, union sources said.

The Herald has been unable to find any such company and there is no business by that name recorded in the telephone directory. A computer company called Access Focus ceased trading 15 years ago.


I think I smell a rat. Meanwhile, the NSW Libs show what's to be done when a bad apple becomes apparent.

Quote

Steve Cansdell has become the first O'Farrell government MP to exit parliament in disgrace, after admitting he signed a false declaration to avoid losing his driver's licence.
Register so you can post replies with ease and remove this message.
Already registered? Please login now to make this message go away.
Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter

0

Share this topic:


  • 18 Pages +
  • « First
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • Last »


Fast Reply