TOPIC:

Bazza wrote:

jackspratt wrote:

Dempsey wrote: Bazza you overview of the man is spot on.

Just to keep the record straight - it ain't Bazza's overview.

It has been shamelessly lifted word for word from the Murdoch rag known as The Un-Australian - and without attribution of course.

How would you know about that without reading what you quote as being a "rag" lol

I guess you have never heard of google .......

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

jackspratt wrote:

Dempsey wrote: Bazza you overview of the man is spot on.

Just to keep the record straight - it ain't Bazza's overview.

It has been shamelessly lifted word for word from the Murdoch rag known as The Un-Australian - and without attribution of course.

JS Bazza also has completely forgotten about what the former President of the Senate did when he found out he was ineligible to sit in the Senate. This was the person who was supposedly the custodian of the rules of one of the houses of parliament. Mind you the precedent about ignoring the principles of President and Speaker was set well and truly by the disgraceful Bronwyn Bishop.

He also conveniently ignores M Turnbull's "the high court will so hold" comment.

Err No, the conveniently ignoring bit applies to you my little socialist apologist, scroll back the thread - I've addressed it.

Bazza the President of the Senate is the one who is responsible for ensuring that the rules are adhered to in the running of the Senate. He knew he was ineligible to sit in the Senate let alone to be the President of the Senate and he DID NOT RESIGN as soon as he was aware of his ineligibility. You can obfuscate, divert as much as you like Bazza but it does not change the fact that what the President of the Senate did was FAR, FAR WORSE than anything Bill Shorten has done or said on this matter.

What the hell are you on about Stephen Parry resigned 4 Days AFTER THE HCA determination.

Exactly Bazza for proving my point.

jackspratt wrote:

Bazza wrote:

jackspratt wrote:

Dempsey wrote: Bazza you overview of the man is spot on.

Just to keep the record straight - it ain't Bazza's overview.

It has been shamelessly lifted word for word from the Murdoch rag known as The Un-Australian - and without attribution of course.

How would you know about that without reading what you quote as being a "rag" lol

I guess you have never heard of google .......

Great to see you taking time out to read some quality Australian Journalism.

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

jackspratt wrote:

Dempsey wrote: Bazza you overview of the man is spot on.

Just to keep the record straight - it ain't Bazza's overview.

It has been shamelessly lifted word for word from the Murdoch rag known as The Un-Australian - and without attribution of course.

JS Bazza also has completely forgotten about what the former President of the Senate did when he found out he was ineligible to sit in the Senate. This was the person who was supposedly the custodian of the rules of one of the houses of parliament. Mind you the precedent about ignoring the principles of President and Speaker was set well and truly by the disgraceful Bronwyn Bishop.

He also conveniently ignores M Turnbull's "the high court will so hold" comment.

Err No, the conveniently ignoring bit applies to you my little socialist apologist, scroll back the thread - I've addressed it.

Bazza the President of the Senate is the one who is responsible for ensuring that the rules are adhered to in the running of the Senate. He knew he was ineligible to sit in the Senate let alone to be the President of the Senate and he DID NOT RESIGN as soon as he was aware of his ineligibility. You can obfuscate, divert as much as you like Bazza but it does not change the fact that what the President of the Senate did was FAR, FAR WORSE than anything Bill Shorten has done or said on this matter.

What the hell are you on about Stephen Parry resigned 4 Days AFTER THE HCA determination.

Exactly Bazza for proving my point.

Which was the same time the ALP members were obliged to go following the clear determination the HCA had given, but they didn't as SHORTEN lied about their credentials giving a ROLLED GOLD GUARANTEE that every ALP MP had done due diligence and they had no problems. which was clearly BULLSHITTEN.

Bazza wrote:
Great to see you taking time out to read some quality Australian Journalism.

You have mistaken me for one of the deluded numbskulls that pay to read, and uncritically believe, the tripe served up in the Murdoch press.

From the first couple of sentences of your plagiarised post it was clear they weren't your words. Didn't take much to work out whose they were.

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

Bazza wrote:

swan42 wrote:

jackspratt wrote:

Dempsey wrote: Bazza you overview of the man is spot on.

Just to keep the record straight - it ain't Bazza's overview.

It has been shamelessly lifted word for word from the Murdoch rag known as The Un-Australian - and without attribution of course.

JS Bazza also has completely forgotten about what the former President of the Senate did when he found out he was ineligible to sit in the Senate. This was the person who was supposedly the custodian of the rules of one of the houses of parliament. Mind you the precedent about ignoring the principles of President and Speaker was set well and truly by the disgraceful Bronwyn Bishop.

He also conveniently ignores M Turnbull's "the high court will so hold" comment.

Err No, the conveniently ignoring bit applies to you my little socialist apologist, scroll back the thread - I've addressed it.

Bazza the President of the Senate is the one who is responsible for ensuring that the rules are adhered to in the running of the Senate. He knew he was ineligible to sit in the Senate let alone to be the President of the Senate and he DID NOT RESIGN as soon as he was aware of his ineligibility. You can obfuscate, divert as much as you like Bazza but it does not change the fact that what the President of the Senate did was FAR, FAR WORSE than anything Bill Shorten has done or said on this matter.

What the hell are you on about Stephen Parry resigned 4 Days AFTER THE HCA determination.

Exactly Bazza for proving my point.

Which was the same time the ALP members were obliged to go following the clear determination the HCA had given, but they didn't as SHORTEN lied about their credentials giving a ROLLED GOLD GUARANTEE that every ALP MP had done due diligence and they had no problems. which was clearly BULLSHITTEN.

Bazza let me put out what should have been obvious to EVEN YOU: the President of the Senate is the person responsible for the running of that house. For him to continue to preside over the Senate when he KNEW he was ineligible to be a Senator is REPREHENSIBLE in the extreme. Bill Shorten has no responsibility in running the House of Reps.

Why won't Turnbull refer Frydenberg, Falinski et al to the High Court to rule on their disputed eligibility? One can only surmise that the reason he refuses to refer them is that he doubts that they are eligible.

Bazza perhaps you might like to see if you can answer the following points:

Why would a party that received 42.31 of the primary votes in the 2016 Federal election in the seat of Perth decide not to contest the by-election?

results.aec.gov.au/20499/Website/HouseDi...onPage-20499-245.htm

Could it be because they would have to try to justify their record on WA's share of the GST?

Could it be because the voters would expect to see senior ministers like M Cash in the seat of Perth urging voters to support the Liberal Party?