Comments on: When did Rudd know?

By: Sinclair Davidson

Sinclair Davidson — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:40:46 +0000

The Australian was saying the number of providers went from 250 firms to over 10,000.

By: Pedro

Pedro — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 07:27:55 +0000

Homer, Costellow summed it up nicely the other day. By throwing money into the industry to get unqualified people employed, the govt attracted spivs and shonks and also overloaded the legit operators which will always lead to problems. The various state depts and industy/union bodies warned the govt of the likely problems. Having set in motion that course of events the government must bear some of the responsibility when the predicted problems quickly eventuated.

The govt is clearly not the same as a person buying a home. Would you say the govt bears no responsibility for the management of any government scheme?

By: dover_beach

dover_beach — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 04:05:50 +0000

Here we have moonbats saying people who bought insulation before the government policy are indirectly responsible for workers deaths.

No one is asserting that, Homer.

By: Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 03:47:01 +0000

err Credit Crunch do you actually read what you write.
Yes I agree about own-goals.

It is remarkable how much evidence you give people of your stupidity. Congratulations
Here we have moonbats saying people who bought insulation before the government policy are indirectly responsible for workers deaths.

Have another chocolate fellas

By: JC

JC — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:33:28 +0000

DB:

This is Homer, we’re talking about, the sub-species that continues to think Skanky ho was a Asian Warlord’s mistress.

By: dover_beach

dover_beach — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:31:50 +0000

so every person who has bought a house that is being built is indirectly responsible.

No, no one is saying that; may be you should pay attention to what is actually said.

By: JC

JC — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:23:28 +0000

So you are out there saying EVERY person who is buying house that is being built is responsible for employees safety not the employer.

Well actually they can be, Homer you anti-Einstein.

They can be found as a contributory party in a personal injury case, which is why the law encumbers all builders or owner builders etc to take out construction insurance prior to starting a job. The insurance note has to be sent to the local authority prior to the start date.

You own goal moron.

By: C.L.

C.L. — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:20:54 +0000

Homer previously argued that the intervention of the state was abolsutely vital to ensure that he could buy the cheapest bananas available at any one time.

He now argues Kevin Rudd has no responsibility for the government’s home incineration and electrocution scheme and that householders are to blame.

By: tal

tal — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:18:29 +0000

Nah just pink batts

By: Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop

Butterfield, Bloomfield & Bishop — Wed, 17 Mar 2010 01:17:51 +0000

so every person who has bought a house that is being built is indirectly responsible.

Moonbats out early today