bringyagrogalong
10/11/2012 5:57:00 AM
"Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "bringyagrogalong" wrote in message
> "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIE_SPAMoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> > "bringyagrogalong" wrote in message
> > "dechucka" <dechuc...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > The Liberal outrage is amazing to say the least. This was a bloke
> > > preselected by the Liberal on many? occasions and Parliamentary
> > > Secretary, Whip and Committee Chairman in the Howard government.
>
> > Not only that, but Slipper was elected as Speaker unopposed.
>
> > That's right "unopposed".
>
> > Yet the lying filth reckon it was solely Labor's vote that put him
> > there.
> > _______________________________________________
>
> > Technically it wasn't the Labor Party's vote, as no vote was taken. But he
> > was there solely because of Labor.
>
> No he wasn't there "solely because of Labor".
>
> The Coalition didn't run against him.
>
> Slipper was elected unopposed.
>
> Those are the facts!
No denial noted!
And no denial possible in view if the facts.
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > No Coalition member voted for him to be Speaker, or supported
> > his election in any manner.
>
> But by not putting up one of their own to run against him they
> effectively supported Slipper's election.
> _______________________________________________________________
>
> No they didn't.
Yes they did.
They didn't nominate one of their own to stand against him.
You seem to be having difficulty in grasping that fact.
> They didn't vote for him. He clearly got the job because of
> Labor's support alone.
Actually nobody voted for him.
It didn't get to a vote because the Coalition refused to stand against
him because it would have cost them a vote.
Slipper was elected unopposed.
So much for their sense of morality.
> had you bothered to read the newspapers or followed the news in
> any way you would know that the Liberals didn't support him
> getting the job, in fact they complained long and hard about him
> getting it.
So why didn't they nominate one of their number to oppose him.
Oh that's right they didn't want to lose a vote.
> Labor precipitated this by offering Slipper the job; Abbott was so incensed
> he expelled Slipper from the Liberal Party. The Liberals then nominated nine
> other members of the House in preference to Slipper; none would accept the
> nomination.
It just required him to nominate a Coalition member and the nomination
would have been accepted.
Labor would have been more than happy to have had a Coalition Speaker
but Abbott refused.
> Since then, Abbott has frequently been critical of having Slipper
> as the Speaker.
But that criticism doesn't preclude Abbott from chasing Slipper's vote
now that he's resigned from being Speaker.
And even more grubby, the Coalition sent emails to Thomson chasing his
vote.
As I said grubby, but not unexpected, as Abbott told Windsor that
there was nothing he wouldn't do to become PM.
> You suggesting that he got the job with the support of the Liberal Party.
No doubt about it.
The Coalition didn't run against him.
Slipper was elected unopposed.
Those are the facts!
<snip attempt at a distraction>
-------------
"After his performance last week, supporters of president Obama,
watching Gillard cut through the disingenuousness and feigned moral
outrage of her opponent to call him out for his own personal
prejudice, hypocrisy, and aversion to facts, might be wishing their
man would take a lesson from Australia".
- Amelia Lester, writing in The New Yorker