The Children Overboard issue develops

[^ Pando]

This is the second time that you were asked about Scrafton, and instead of addressing the question, you bring up someone else......:|

Been missing all th ecommentary on that one Pando??

Because he would have been sacked and the ALP did not call him.

How would you know?

 

[_Johnsy]

He said he did not set out to mislead, by your comments he did not intend to lie. So at what point did he know that he had in fact mislead?
When he knew this, why not come out with a statement that he did not set out to mislead us?

Or are we to believe that this has just occured in the last week

 

[^ Pando]

SS said he didn't believe that Mr Scrafton would be sacked for going to the media at the time. Jane Errey claims she was, why wouldn't Mr Scrafton have been?

Jane Errey, whoever the hell she is, can claim anything she likes.

If you don't know who she is, then how can you comment on her credibility?

Is she a personal friend of yours? Who are you to comment on her credibility?

 

[JK]

This is the second time that you were asked about Scrafton, and instead of addressing the question, you bring up someone else......:|

Been missing all th ecommentary on that one Pando??

Because he would have been sacked and the ALP did not call him.

How would you know?

I know the ALP did not call him because I have read the transcripts and heard his comments about how he was not called.

I know he would have been sacked because others have been. They have also been slandered and publically trawled through sh!t but lets ignore that because we don't care. Pathetic.

 

[0neye]

I've seen the light JK im come over to the lip bitting bed wetting loony lefts way of thinking , im going to open up my house to the Muzzie refos hope you are going to too how many do you wont,why did those Muzzie refos leave Indo its a Muzzie country why come to a christian country

Out of curiosity I hit the 'see post' button.

And I get more of that same crap that led me to ignore your posts in the first place.

You are an embarrassment to your side of politics.

has that pussy got any fight in it or is it like you just piss & wind :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[mickdo]

This is the second time that you were asked about Scrafton, and instead of addressing the question, you bring up someone else......:|

Been missing all th ecommentary on that one Pando??

Because he would have been sacked and the ALP did not call him.

How would you know?

I don't think I have ever seen a more aimless, irrelevant, stupid post.

 

[_Johnsy]

I see you got stuck in to a person on another post for not replying to a question you asked twice pando, so is there any chance you could answer the question please.

He said he did not set out to mislead, by your comments he did not intend to lie. So at what point did he know that he had in fact mislead?
When he knew this, why not come out with a statement that he did not set out to mislead us?
Or are we to believe that this has just occured in the last week

 

[ibeme]

SS said he didn't believe that Mr Scrafton would be sacked for going to the media at the time. Jane Errey claims she was, why wouldn't Mr Scrafton have been?

Jane Errey, whoever the hell she is, can claim anything she likes.

If you don't know who she is, then how can you comment on her credibility?

Is she a personal friend of yours? Who are you to comment on her credibility?

I know who she is, and what she did, which gives me more reason than you

 

[JK]

This is the second time that you were asked about Scrafton, and instead of addressing the question, you bring up someone else......:|

Been missing all th ecommentary on that one Pando??

Because he would have been sacked and the ALP did not call him.

How would you know?

I don't think I have ever seen a more aimless, irrelevant, stupid post.

Look above that one ;-)

 

[^ Pando]

I don't think I have ever seen a more aimless, irrelevant, stupid post.

Who cares what you think? Like you have some sort of supernatural hold on aim, relevance and posts. :roll:

 

[JK]

I don't think I have ever seen a more aimless, irrelevant, stupid post.

Who cares what you think? Like you have some sort of supernatural hold on aim, relevance and posts. :roll:

Are you answering that other post sometime soon?

 

[^ Pando]

I know who she is, and what she did, which gives me more reason than you

OK Brainiac. Who is she, and what did she do of any significance?

 

[^ Pando]

Are you answering that other post sometime soon?

You talking to me? :|

 

[JK]

I see you got stuck in to a person on another post for not replying to a question you asked twice pando, so is there any chance you could answer the question please.

He said he did not set out to mislead, by your comments he did not intend to lie. So at what point did he know that he had in fact mislead?
When he knew this, why not come out with a statement that he did not set out to mislead us?
Or are we to believe that this has just occured in the last week

Yeah - I am talking to you.

 

[ibeme]

I know who she is, and what she did, which gives me more reason than you

OK Brainiac. Who is she, and what did she do of any significance?

She was a senior defence advisor who believed that she was asked to write briefs on Iraq's supposed WMD's for the government, based on reports from the UN Weapons Inspectors findings.

What she wanted to write, differed in terms of accuracy, to what the government wanted her to write. In other words, she wanted to be accurate, the government wanted her to sex it up.

She refused to do so, and instead was granted a request for unpaid leave. Then she was sacked.

 

[^ Pando]

I see you got stuck in to a person on another post for not replying to a question you asked twice pando, so is there any chance you could answer the question please.

He said he did not set out to mislead, by your comments he did not intend to lie. So at what point did he know that he had in fact mislead?
When he knew this, why not come out with a statement that he did not set out to mislead us?
Or are we to believe that this has just occured in the last week

Yeah - I am talking to you.

This is old news. Howard said at the time that he didn't intend to mislead the public. :?

 

[^ Pando]

She was a senior defence advisor who believed that she was asked to write briefs on Iraq's supposed WMD's for the government, based on reports from the UN Weapons Inspectors findings.

What she wanted to write, differed in terms of accuracy, to what the government wanted her to write. In other words, she wanted to be accurate, the government wanted her to sex it up.

She refused to do so, and instead was granted a request for unpaid leave. Then she was sacked.

Who believed that she was asked to sex up reports?

Was she or wasn't she? Please provide proof other than her say so.

 

[JK]

I see you got stuck in to a person on another post for not replying to a question you asked twice pando, so is there any chance you could answer the question please.

He said he did not set out to mislead, by your comments he did not intend to lie. So at what point did he know that he had in fact mislead?
When he knew this, why not come out with a statement that he did not set out to mislead us?
Or are we to believe that this has just occured in the last week

Yeah - I am talking to you.

This is old news. Howard said at the time that he didn't intend to mislead the public. :?

No it is not - why did Howard not correct the record immediately.

 

[0neye]

I think the ALP have told more lie than any one in the world

Bob Hawke
"By 1990 no Australian child will live in poverty."
:lol: :lol: :lol: ;-)

 

[0neye]

& this one

Paul Keating
The tax cuts are "L-A-W law."

:lol: :lol: :lol: ;-)