Joe Hockey suing Fairfax for defamation - Polidicks

[IMG]http://www.politicalowl.com/home/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/5-05-2014-smh1.jpg[/IMG] [QUOTE]Mr Hockey this afternoon lodged documents to commence defamation proceedings against the publisher, in response to the story that ran on the front pages of The Age, Sydney Morning Herald and Canberra Times newspapers the day after the Budget was handed down. A spokesman for the treasurer told The Australian that his determination to prosecute this matter against the relevant publications should not be underestimated". "The Treasurer has filed statements of claim in the Federal Court in relation to defamation proceedings against SMH, The Age, Canberra Times," the spokesman said. Read more at [url]http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/2014/05/20/16/46/joe-hockey-sues-fairfax-for-defamation#SfZ7zbUzSEAieoEV.99[/url][/QUOTE] posted the whole thing because it was short

Yeah good luck with that you shmuck.

You can't sue what it's about out of existence Hockey

I wonder if News Corp is throwing a few dollars his way?

What exactly is he suing for defamation over? Surely there can't be anything worse there than the "I know nuthink" headline.

If hes for sale, can the Canadian Government buy him?

Hockey and Abbott: showing in style, how to become Australia's most quickly irrelevant Government.

The sad thing about the whole budget business and the government is that it's exactly what happened with Julia and the carbon tax, everyone goes on about how they won't survive unless they change. But they will. They'll be here for six years and do a whole lot of scary things in the meantime.

Hockey actually did well on Q&A last night, he answered many of the hard questions damn well. He'd make a much better PM than Abbott He's stupid from a PR standpoint to sue fairfax But looks like he pissed off a few people, it's like a reverse of the bias before the last election. Now we've got bias in the complete opposite direction

[QUOTE=Cakebatyr;44857162]If hes for sale, can the Canadian Government buy him?[/QUOTE] Is Canada desperate for shit financial ministers?

[QUOTE=Tasm;44857312]Hockey actually did well on Q&A last night, he answered many of the hard questions damn well. He'd make a much better PM than Abbott [/QUOTE] I honestly don't know how anyone could possibly think that - even the most staunch Liberal supporter?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;44857413]I honestly don't know how anyone could possibly think that - even the most staunch Liberal supporter?[/QUOTE] Nah I usually vote labor (and I did last election), I just dont hold a bias mindset and let myself be indoctrinated by heresay, I actually felt like reading through the whole budget after the episode and found out that a lot of it is cherry picking used in articles, most of it is actually fair. I suggest you all go read through it before you bash it. Every article you read is bias in one way or another, best to go with the source and form your own opinion. I just think Abbott needs to go tbh. But naturally, facepunch is hilariously immature and even at the mention of liberal the bandwagon of dumb comes down and "lol fuck Abbott" comments, which is hardly relevant because he's only a retarded puppet, who can't stop talking shit. Hockey at least can talk like a leader.

[QUOTE=Tasm;44857756]Nah I usually vote labor (and I did last election), I just dont hold a bias mindset and let myself be indoctrinated by heresay, I actually felt like reading through the whole budget after the episode and found out that a lot of it is cherry picking used in articles, most of it is actually fair. I suggest you all go read through it before you bash it. Every article you read is bias in one way or another, best to go with the source and form your own opinion. I just think Abbott needs to go tbh.[/quote] Bullshit it is. Having read analysis done by both News Corp and Fairfax papers, I can only see cherry picking done by one paper. I'll leave you to guess which one that is. Seeing as how you claim most of it is fair, can you go through and actually list what you think is fair? There is plenty that is unfair, but does it really need to be listed? [QUOTE=Tasm;44857756]But naturally, facepunch is hilariously immature and even at the mention of liberal the bandwagon of dumb comes down and "lol fuck Abbott" comments, which is hardly relevant because he's only a retarded puppet, who can't stop talking shit. Hockey at least can talk like a leader.[/QUOTE] Wait, this is coming from the guy that is just dumb voted everyone that doesn't support your contention? I watched Q&A, and I thought Hockey was abysmal. He cannot, for the life of him, make himself appeal to a regular voter. Everything that he says has some sort of entitled view to it.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;44857943]Bullshit it is. Having read analysis done by both News Corp and Fairfax papers, I can only see cherry picking done by one paper. I'll leave you to guess which one that is. Seeing as how you claim most of it is fair, can you go through and actually list what you think is fair? There is plenty that is unfair, but does it really need to be listed? Wait, this is coming from the guy that is just dumb voted everyone that doesn't support your contention? I watched Q&A, and I thought Hockey was abysmal. He cannot, for the life of him, make himself appeal to a regular voter. Everything that he says has some sort of entitled view to it.[/QUOTE] If you expect me to go spoon feed you everything about the budget, you're an idiot, I don't have hours to sit down and citate everything in there that's good and bad just for one person. You're being unrealistic and terrible silly. Also you ask for everything fair to be listed, then state that anything unfair doesn't need to be listed? Sounds like you just want to hear what melds with your opinion best, so you can keep swindling your judgement from heresay of the 'unfair' policies. Yes some shit is unfair, but no budget is flawless. I suggest you read through the budget yourself, maybe then you'll actually pick up on some of the cherry picking. Also Hockey seemed to handle himself well under pressure of many misinformed people in Q&A while being rushed to move to other questions while he was still answering.

[QUOTE=Tasm;44858222]If you expect me to go spoon feed you everything about the budget, you're an idiot, I don't have hours to sit down and citate everything in there that's good and bad just for one person. You're being unrealistic and terrible silly.[/QUOTE] You've made a comment saying that the media are cherry picking the budget. Yet you refuse to post anything supporting that claim. Amazing. And you're calling me an idiot. By the way, try not to go straight to the name calling. It's really not a good look when you go straight to calling someone an idiot instead of addressing their point. (inb4 what point?) [QUOTE=Tasm;44858222]Also you ask for everything fair to be listed, then state that anything unfair doesn't need to be listed? Sounds like you just want to hear what melds with your opinion best, so you can keep swindling your judgement from heresay of the 'unfair' policies. [/QUOTE] I state that it doesn't need to be listed because the plethora of articles have been listed. The majority of the budget is negative, with only very few sectors benefiting from it. By the way, it's hearsay. And yes, the policies are very unfair. [QUOTE=Tasm;44858222] Also Hockey seemed to handle himself well under pressure of many misinformed people in Q&A while being rushed to move to other questions while he was still answering.[/QUOTE] Again, could not disagree more with your point of view. During Q&A I thought he conducted himself poorly - going back to the stupid catch phrases of the election, rather than addressing anything thoroughly. To be fair though, Q&A is a joke when it comes to that. No politician ever gives proper answers. [QUOTE=Tasm;44858222]I suggest you read through the budget yourself, maybe then you'll actually pick up on some of the cherry picking.[/QUOTE] I have. Although, I'd like you to suggest what is being cherry picked. Reading the budget on it's own doesn't give you any answer to fairness or equity though. It is a document created by the party in Government and thus is obviously partisan. Don't worry though, there are programs like "National School Chaplaincy Programme" with $250+ million of funding over 5 years. Not only will the Government ensure that money is distributed fairly, they'll ensure they get a great Christian education too. (wait?)

Sweet name this guy's got.

[QUOTE=DogGunn;44858305]You've made a comment saying that the media are cherry picking the budget. Yet you refuse to post anything supporting that claim. Amazing. And you're calling me an idiot. By the way, try not to go straight to the name calling. It's really not a good look when you go straight to calling someone an idiot instead of addressing their point. (inb4 what point?) I state that it doesn't need to be listed because the plethora of articles have been listed. The majority of the budget is negative, with only very few sectors benefiting from it. By the way, it's hearsay. And yes, the policies are very unfair. Again, could not disagree more with your point of view. During Q&A I thought he conducted himself poorly - going back to the stupid catch phrases of the election, rather than addressing anything thoroughly. To be fair though, Q&A is a joke when it comes to that. No politician ever gives proper answers. I have. Although, I'd like you to suggest what is being cherry picked. Reading the budget on it's own doesn't give you any answer to fairness or equity though. It is a document created by the party in Government and thus is obviously partisan. Don't worry though, there are programs like "National School Chaplaincy Programme" with $250+ million of funding over 5 years. Not only will the Government ensure that money is distributed fairly, they'll ensure they get a great Christian education too. (wait?)[/QUOTE] I think it's safe to assume you don't agree and you still don't understand how much of a task citating all that information is, I do not have time. I'll just leave it at that, you can disagree, I'm not going to sway your opinionated views anyway. But I still urge you to read it for yourself if you have the time, and sorry for the name calling, it's frustrating when I've been asked to document an enormous amount of information for a forum. But I do think Hockey did well with what he had to go by in Q&A, and I was comparing him to the likes of Swan and Costello during Q&A with his responses, and he did quite well in that regard. He's definitely more likeable than the rest of the liberal frontbench, but he seemed oddly cold during Q&A. Very different to his normal demeanor And yeah I know it's hearsay, my phone autocorrects words for me that aren't accurate on occasion, or it's to do with how I'm typing. And my point is the budget isn't really as abysmal as it sounds, nobody really mentions the benefits, but however the budget is not GOOD, there is definitely flaws. But that's the joy of Australian politics, we end up liking whoever shits on our chest least, but the liberals just took a huge dookie. This backlash will help them get it on track for latter part of the term.

[QUOTE=Tasm;44858470]I think it's safe to assume you don't agree and you still don't understand how much of a task citating all that information is, I do not have time. I'll just leave it at that, you can disagree, I'm not going to sway your opinionated views anyway. But I still urge you to read it for yourself if you have the time[/quote] For goodness sake, I have read their documents. And? [QUOTE=Tasm;44858470]And my point is the budget isn't really as abysmal as it sounds, nobody really mentions the benefits, but however the budget is not GOOD, there is definitely flaws. But that's the joy of Australian politics, we end up liking whoever shits on our chest least, but the liberals just took a huge dookie. This backlash will help them get it on track for latter part of the term.[/QUOTE] The budget isn't good (heck even my staunch Liberal friends, one whos parent is a Liberal Senator in Commonwealth Parliament think it isn't a good budget) - I haven't called it anything in particular other than unfair. And that's simply because those people that are vulnerable, i.e. those on welfare or low incomes, are the ones harshest done by it. $7 co-payments, for even things like getting immunisations or eye checks. Higher safety-nets. Let's not forget the Government allowing complete deregulation of Universities. I'm sure anyone enrolling after the date of the 13th May 2014 can't wait to enjoy completely deregulated fees come 2017. etc Need more be said, or are you going to keep attributing it to cherry picking when referring to if the budget is fair or not?

[QUOTE=DogGunn;44858521]For goodness sake, I have read their documents. And? The budget isn't good (heck even my staunch Liberal friends, one whos parent is a Liberal Senator in Commonwealth Parliament think it isn't a good budget) - I haven't called it anything in particular other than unfair. And that's simply because those people that are vulnerable, i.e. those on welfare or low incomes, are the ones harshest done by it. $7 co-payments, for even things like getting immunisations or eye checks. Higher safety-nets. Let's not forget the Government allowing complete deregulation of Universities. I'm sure anyone enrolling after the date of the 13th May 2014 can't wait to enjoy completely deregulated fees come 2017. etc Need more be said, or are you going to keep attributing it to cherry picking when referring to if the budget is fair or not?[/QUOTE] Dude I didn't say it was good. It's just not abysmal, there was leaps and bounds in various fields and backflips and reversals in others.