by A Mum » Mon Nov 23, 2009 4:43 pm
by bayman » Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:30 pm
by Mickyj » Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:34 pm
by southee » Mon Nov 23, 2009 6:41 pm
Mickyj wrote:If he did have sex with her what's the problem.He was single at the time she was the married shouldn't we be up in arms over a WOMAN being adulterous.
Hell we can't have a single politician having sex. but a married woman having an affair we can feel sorry for .Round the wrong way if its true .
And then her estranged husband wants an enquiry smells rotten to me or in other words a set up to end his political career.
by Mickyj » Mon Nov 23, 2009 7:26 pm
southee wrote:Mickyj wrote:If he did have sex with her what's the problem.He was single at the time she was the married shouldn't we be up in arms over a WOMAN being adulterous.
Hell we can't have a single politician having sex. but a married woman having an affair we can feel sorry for .Round the wrong way if its true .
And then her estranged husband wants an enquiry smells rotten to me or in other words a set up to end his political career.
He was not single...he was engaged to Sasha....so that makes it ok then????
by Lunchcutter » Mon Nov 23, 2009 10:20 pm
by CoverKing » Mon Nov 23, 2009 11:58 pm
Mickyj wrote:southee wrote:Mickyj wrote:If he did have sex with her what's the problem.He was single at the time she was the married shouldn't we be up in arms over a WOMAN being adulterous.
Hell we can't have a single politician having sex. but a married woman having an affair we can feel sorry for .Round the wrong way if its true .
And then her estranged husband wants an enquiry smells rotten to me or in other words a set up to end his political career.
He was not single...he was engaged to Sasha....so that makes it ok then????
And she is married so its ok for a married american or canadian women to commit adultery and then get paid for her story from a tv station and a magazine
by mick » Tue Nov 24, 2009 6:16 am
by Psyber » Tue Nov 24, 2009 8:51 am
by Bum Crack » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:06 am
by redandblack » Tue Nov 24, 2009 9:31 am
Psyber wrote:What really goes to the question of his ethics is not whether or not he had sex with the woman.
It is whether he conned his fiancee into making a call to her, ostensibly to invite her and her husband to a function, but in reality to help him create an alibi..
This is a much more serious allegation.
by gossipgirl » Tue Nov 24, 2009 10:08 am
Bum Crack wrote:who cares![]()
by Psyber » Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:34 pm
No mate...redandblack wrote:You're kidding, PsyberPsyber wrote:What really goes to the question of his ethics is not whether or not he had sex with the woman.
It is whether he conned his fiancee into making a call to her, ostensibly to invite her and her husband to a function, but in reality to help him create an alibi..
This is a much more serious allegation.
by redandblack » Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:41 pm
by aceman » Tue Nov 24, 2009 3:52 pm
by Jimmy_041 » Tue Nov 24, 2009 4:44 pm
Lunchcutter wrote:who'd want to root either one of 'em anyway
by Psyber » Tue Nov 24, 2009 5:12 pm
I have no argument with that.redandblack wrote:I don't necessarily disagree with that, but it's a personal matter, not a 'serious allegation'.
It's between him and his wife, no-one else.
If not, do we then become morality judges for all politicians (or anyone, for that matter).
by wycbloods » Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:13 am
by aceman » Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:25 am
wycbloods wrote:Of the 34 who voted either No or Unsure, how many would change their vote now given what has happened in the last week or so?
by silicone skyline » Fri Nov 27, 2009 11:31 am
aceman wrote:wycbloods wrote:Of the 34 who voted either No or Unsure, how many would change their vote now given what has happened in the last week or so?
Money will entice a lot of weak people to say or do a lot of things. I still say it's "bikie driven" and I wouldn't trust the ex husband with a mangy dog!mangy dog.jpg
Competitions SANFL Official Site | Country Footy SA | Southern Football League | VFL Footy
Club Forums Snouts Louts | The Roost | Redlegs Forum |