Thursday, 2 September 2010

Conserative politian caught looking at porn on his work PC

quote [ New South Wales Christian Democrat MP Fred Nile has been implicated in an internet pornography scandal.

..

The Daily Telegraph reports a parliamentary internet audit shows that Reverend Nile's computer has been used to access internet pornography. ]

For the love of GOD someone post what he was looking at! I bet it was gay hardcore bondage stuff... for "research"
[politics] [by afrasr@1:20amGMT] [+10 Funny]

Comments

Krutz said @ 1:28am GMT on 2nd Sep
It's no accident that places like Utah consume the most pr0n.

Relgion = repression = $$ for the sexmongers.
theolypse said @ 1:33am GMT on 2nd Sep
I wonder how old the intern who's going to hang in his place is.
assbastard said @ 2:33pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Probably the one that's well-hung.
TheCooler said @ 1:50am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:2 Insightful]
It's sad that looking at pornography is scandalous.
clumsy_juggler said @ 1:53am GMT on 2nd Sep
It is also sad that people don't understand that workplace computers are monitored.
maryyugo said @ 1:53am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:1 Underrated]
In this instance, it's pretty gleeful.
rndmnmbr said @ 4:45am GMT on 2nd Sep
My solution?

Be the one doing the monitoring.
ralfmaximus said @ 1:28pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Oh, so you like to watch?
willrogers said @ 1:53am GMT on 2nd Sep
I think the issue is looking at it with government computers during work hours and not simply that it was porn.
theolypse said @ 2:04am GMT on 2nd Sep
Remember, this happened in Australia.
willrogers said @ 2:06am GMT on 2nd Sep
What does that mean?
theolypse said @ 2:15am GMT on 2nd Sep
He is part of a concerted effort to make pornography illegal. Him. Personally.
willrogers said @ 2:20am GMT on 2nd Sep
Ah, good point.
crom said @ 2:10am GMT on 2nd Sep
So if he had been playing Minesweeper or doing any other form of time wasting the scandal would have been of equal magnitude?
willrogers said @ 2:22am GMT on 2nd Sep
To me, yes, it's the same, but when it's people that are trying to use government to ban the thing they are using government resources to access, then it's fucked up.
TheCooler said @ 2:11am GMT on 2nd Sep
I don't work in an office, but I wouldn't care if someone were fapping in the cubicle next to me so long as they kept the volume down and did their work. But then again I don't get much done when I am looking for the right porn
sanepride said @ 2:19am GMT on 2nd Sep
I'm actually quite productive when I'm looking at the right porn. As for what I'm actually producing, well...
rndmnmbr said @ 4:47am GMT on 2nd Sep
If it's high-quality and meets marketability guidelines, no problem.
crom said @ 2:15am GMT on 2nd Sep
If you catch Larry Flynt doing it, it's nothing. If you catch a guy who thinks it should be scandalous doing it, it damn well should be a scandal.
Krutz said @ 1:36pm GMT on 2nd Sep
It's a hard concept for the right to grasp: If you run on 'family values' and other cultural ideas that point towards a repressive society where sex is taboo, then damn straight you're going to get called on it if you're caught delving into that which you disdain.

Also, "Publisher of Hustler Magazine" wasn't an elected office, last time I checked, though it would be interesting if it was.
ralfmaximus said @ 1:57pm GMT on 2nd Sep
It's hubris, nothing more. "I'm too smart to get caught."

The chronically stupid are too stupid to realize how stupid they are. I believe the phenomenon is actually documented and has a name.
sanepride said @ 1:55am GMT on 2nd Sep
A little background on this guy and his party would be helpful, especially for us non-Aussies. European Christian Democrats tend to be centrist, even mildly left on economic issues, last I checked.

Otherwise, if he is in fact a religious and social conservative, I'm inclined to actually agree with erich's 'boring' mod. Only because christian conservatives caught up in hypocritical sex scandals has become such a common cliche - in the US anyway.
theolypse said @ 2:05am GMT on 2nd Sep
Agreed, honestly. Conservative religious hypocrisy isn't news. It's not even old news. It's olds. No one is surprised who is capable of disbelieving the glamour.
willrogers said @ 2:19am GMT on 2nd Sep
But the problem is that most people don't know about or simply ignore the hypocrisy by the most important assholes.

As I noted in another comment, Sarah Palin are two of the biggest names in American conservatism and hypocrisy but people still love them and ignore their blatant hypocrisy.

Hell, conservatives even play upon this hypocritical moralizing like when in 2000 Karl Rove told South Carolinians that John McCain had an illegitimate black baby, when he really just had a daughter he and his wife adopted from Bangladesh.
theolypse said @ 2:22am GMT on 2nd Sep
who is capable of disbelieving the glamour

Let's try this again. I know and expect this behavior. You know and expect this behavior. Some people do not know or expect this behavior, and WILL NOT know OR expect this behavior when they have redefined this man as a false Scotsman.
willrogers said @ 2:29am GMT on 2nd Sep
Yeah, I agree with the Scotsman thing.

Conservatives love doing that shit.

If a GOP politican every does anything that strays from the party line, they are suddenly disowned as a conservative. They even has a fucking name for it, Republican in Name Only (RINO).
Naruki said @ 2:48pm GMT on 2nd Sep
That's not how RINO/DINO is used. Those terms are for people who don't toe the line "properly", and generally they hit back at the accusers with a counter claim.

This post is talking about throwing someone under the bus or outright disowning someone for getting caught being a hypocrite. As the many GOP gay scandals have shown us, the party bases their reaction to the scandal on what would happen if the red-handed hypocrite were removed from office.

If his home state governor is likely to replace him with a Democrat, then the GOP line up and support their understandably strayed and penitent brethren. We are all humans, and prone to honest mistakes, after all.

But if the seat is safely in GOP hands, however, then the vile sinner is repudiated to the highest degree. Such besmirchment of all that we hold dear cannot be tolerated!
willrogers said @ 6:43pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Yes, it is.

Now that he's out of office, a bunch of conservative pundits have been washing their hands of George W Bush, with some of them like Glen Greenwald even calling Bush leftwing and liberal.
Naruki said @ 10:55am GMT on 3rd Sep
No it isn't. That's after the fact. RINO/DINO is for current, publicly known behavior that you are known to disagree with as part of being a "true" Rep/Dem.
willrogers said @ 2:05am GMT on 2nd Sep
I don't know if I would say it's "boring" because it's actually kind of an important issue.

Major Christian conservative politicians expect people to live up to standards that they themselves refuse to follow.

Just look at Sarah Pain who wants Rahm Emmanuel fired for saying "retard" once and yet she defends Dr. Laura for all the racist shit she said. She also used outrage to purposely obfuscated a joke by David Letterman about her eldest daughter's baby born out of wedlock and made it seem like Letterman was making a pedophilia rape joke about one of her younger daughters.

So I guess it's ok to insult black people as a race but not ok to even hint at a disparaging remark to anyone in Palin's family.

Or look at Next Gingrich cheating on his wives (including while one of his wives was in the hospital being treated for cancer) and being married three times, but yet he still insists on being against gay marriage because that would destroy the sanctity of marriage.

http://www.thinkprogress.org/2010/08/10/gingrich-adultery-irrelevant/
"He asked her to just tolerate the affair, an offer she refused.

He’d just returned from Erie, Pennsylvania, where he’d given a speech full of high sentiments about compassion and family values.

The next night, they sat talking out on their back patio in Georgia. She said, “How do you give that speech and do what you’re doing?”

“It doesn’t matter what I do,” he answered. “People need to hear what I have to say. There’s no one else who can say what I can say. It doesn’t matter what I live.“"


It's classic Christian conservative hypocrisy "do as I say not as I do."
blackpsypher said @ 2:15am GMT on 2nd Sep
I'm just trying to wrap my head around which aspect of being a minister of ports and waterways would require research into porn and gambling.
sanepride said @ 2:17am GMT on 2nd Sep
The human body is loaded with ports and waterways. And navigating some of them can be chancy.
Ankylosaur said @ 2:33am GMT on 2nd Sep
ports = vagina,anus,mouth
waterways = riverboat casinos
sacrelicious said @ 2:50am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:2]
okay, stay with me on this one: an anti-porn lobbyist is trying to secure his support for an anti-porn bill. could happen, right? so he's reviewing the materials, and included therein are links to some of the sites the lobby group finds most disgusting and/or potentially actionable. he wants to be informed on the matter, so he visits those links to make sure what they're talking about is actually out there. OR the materials he's given don't include links, but he still wants to do independent research on the matter.

okay, sure, he probably was looking at porn for masturbation purposes, but the above scenario is entirely plausible, is it not?
theolypse said @ 2:53am GMT on 2nd Sep
No. Not really. That only happens in lame excuses.
willrogers said @ 2:54am GMT on 2nd Sep
Good point, but why be so cryptic that it's for "research purposes" and not just come out and say that it's for actually preparing to ban porn?

Being laconic about it really just makes it look like he was surfing for fapping material, but if he had been forthright about it he probably would have been praised by conservatives.

As people here have pointed out, it's not uncommon for conservatives to actually like porn and stuff they are supposed to hate so it's not like it's out of the question for him to be jerking off at work.
sacrelicious said @ 2:57am GMT on 2nd Sep
maybe he doesn't want to tip his hand before the final bill is drafted.
radioelectric said @ 8:20am GMT on 2nd Sep
Wasn't tipping his hand what got him into this trouble in the first place?
sacrelicious said @ 6:21pm GMT on 2nd Sep
what's australian for "heyooooo!"?
eggboy said @ 9:18pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:4 Insightful]
¡oooooʎǝɥ
atter_cob said @ 3:39am GMT on 2nd Sep
I use my work computer to look at whatever the fuck I want. If anyone complains then I take the first amendment, roll that mother up, and slap the nosey fucker upside the head.

As long as I'm doing my job and not harassing others, it's my own fucking business what I look at. If they want to disallow *all personal* surfing, then fine. But otherwise I don't need some thought police telling me what's ok and what's not.
sanepride said @ 3:43am GMT on 2nd Sep
I think you mean the Fifth Amendment. That's the one that protects you from self-incrimination. Better brush up on this stuff in case you do get in trouble with the 'thought police'.
willrogers said @ 3:57am GMT on 2nd Sep
That's not a correct application of the 5th Amendment.

The 5th applies to court proceedings and interactions with LEOs and government agents. It doesn't really have to do with telling your employer what you've been doing with their property.

Your employer could potentially fire you if you refuse to answer a a question of theirs, with the notable exceptions being things like sexual preference or religion. You can't even escape with the excuse that it's what you are doing in your off time, because employers can legally drug test you as a condition of employment, which is partially a test of your private activities.

Furthermore, you really don't have the same expectation of privacy at work as you would with your own private property.

Technically, all your workspace and materials are company property so your employer can actually consent to a search by LEOs without your personal consent. The exception would be any area that you individually lock and your employer has no lawful means to access, e.g. your work locker that you secure with your own padlock.
sanepride said @ 11:19pm GMT on 2nd Sep
'Taking the fifth' is a common figurative expression, applying to any situation where one wouldn't want to incriminate themselves. I think that's what after_cob meant, even though he said 'take the first amendment'.
willrogers said @ 2:33am GMT on 3rd Sep
Actually, I think he really meant the 1st because his idea was that his employer either needs to block EVERYTHING personal/non-work from being done on company computers or they need to shut the fuck up and not single out the personal stuff he likes to do on their computers.

I.e. he's applying the principle that you can't censor someone's speech simply because you don't like the content, with his interpretation being that his personal/non-work stuff is speech content and is therefore protected from being selectively punished.

This is an incorrect application of the 1st Amendment for a variety of reasons, including those I've already specified in another comment.
sanepride said @ 3:22am GMT on 3rd Sep
Get out of after_cob's head!
willrogers said @ 5:08am GMT on 3rd Sep
Can't help myself, it's my occupation and it just kinda blends into everything else.
willrogers said @ 4:04am GMT on 2nd Sep
Actually, they can pretty much tell you what you can and can't do with their property and it's not really protected speech. This is why they can put a net nanny program on the company computers or block certain websites from being viewed on their network and you can't sue them for 1st amendment violations. The employer has the power to restrict whatever sites he/she chooses as long as it isn't part of some pattern of selective discrimination, like allowing Christian websites but blocking Muslim ones.

Watching youtube videos of nutshots isn't really protected speech and neither is viewing porn.

You're being paid to do a job and using company property on company time to do things other than what you are being paid to do isn't protected by the 1st Amendment and can easily get you fired. You might be able finagle an excuse that what you're doing is for your work (e.g. looking at how other sites market their products and services on the web), but that's a gamble.

Also, you'll probably also get fired for insubordination for telling your boss to fuck off when he/she asks you what you've been doing with your computer on company time.
atter_cob said @ 8:57am GMT on 2nd Sep
"Also, you'll probably also get fired for insubordination for telling your boss to fuck off."

Lucky for me that my "boss" does not actually have the authority to fire me. :)
donnie said @ 11:53am GMT on 2nd Sep
Oh, you work in government... that's different.
willrogers said @ 5:14pm GMT on 2nd Sep
It's better than being able to fire someone because they're black.
spite48 said @ 8:03am GMT on 3rd Sep
So what you're saying is that the constitution requires an additional amendment?
eggboy said @ 10:13pm GMT on 2nd Sep
A good mate just got fired for looking up porn at work in Aus, and he was the best bloke they had. If this Pollie doesn't get fired too I'll be spewin.
pleaides said @ 4:02am GMT on 2nd Sep
Awesome. This guys is a fuckwit.
MindNinja said @ 4:46am GMT on 2nd Sep
I bet he knows where to find the pics of that Manitoba judge.
willrogers said @ 4:57am GMT on 2nd Sep
I think this is a call to use the "bubbling" technique discussed in another SE post on all anti-porn conservatives around the world, including this dude in the OP.
tomintroy said @ 5:10am GMT on 2nd Sep
Please don't confuse conservatives with the all to common whack jobs that have infested the Republican party for at least 50 years.
willrogers said @ 5:23am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:1 Funny]
Show me a sane, reasonable Republican and I'll show you someone that's about to lose a primary.
ralfmaximus said @ 5:48am GMT on 2nd Sep
Where ARE all the non-whackjob conservatives?

Seriously. I would love to see them take control of the GOP or any political party. There's nothing wrong with conservatism as an ideology, but what passes for 'conservatism' in America right now is closer to theological fascism.
willrogers said @ 6:08am GMT on 2nd Sep
Exactly.

Sarah Palin = wackjob, retard dominionist. Makes up shit about death panels in the healthcare reform bill.

John McCain = Desperate old man cowtowing to crazies he would have smacked in his youth just so he can die in office

George W Bush = Crazy Christian that shred the Bill of Rights when he felt like it got in the way of his neoconservatism or corporatism

Ron Paul = Crazy ass conservative libertarian that wants to get rid of basically every government agency

Dick Cheney = Corporatist asshole that is proud of torture

Sharron Angle = Tea bagger nutjob that thinks the healthcare system can be fixed by having patients barter with their doctors

Jan Brewer = idiot racist that scapegoats Latinos as the cause for her state's problems even though violent crime is down, as is illegal immigration

Carly Fiorina = One of the worst CEOs in history, she has failed up after fucking up HP and leaving with a golden parachute. She is the posterchild for executive elitism

Rand Paul = Libertard that thinks the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a bad thing because the right to discriminate against Blacks is more important than Black civil rights. Just another libertarian zealot that thinks the invisible hand solves every problem.

Tom Coburn = Thinks that abortion doctors deserve the death penalty

John Boehner = Thinks that the worst economic disaster since the Great Depression is an "ant" and the milquetoast financial reform bill is a "nuclear weapon." His solution to healthcare reform was to start over after over a year of discussion and debate

And those are just the ones I can come up with off the top of my head.
maryyugo said @ 6:40am GMT on 2nd Sep
Well, I'd add former eBay CEO Meg Whitman running for California governor to the mix. She'd remove most environmental regulations and cut vital infrastructure, schools, welfare, health care and anything else in order to make the rich richer. Hell, she's richer than shit herself and her ethics are even smellier. Unfortunately, she's opposed by Moonbeam McSwine in the form of Gerry Brown who screwed the pooch when he was governator, allowing the welfare establishment and medicaid fraudsters to rip and gouge the state. His current boodoggle is some shit about generating 20,000 megawatts of green energy or was it 20 million, whatever green energy is and creating 500,000 jobs by so doing, a number he simply pulled out of his loosely sphinctered ass.

Neither of these morons wants to do anything to sanction employers against hiring undocumented workers nor anything real to protect the borders. Both are of course counting on the Hispanic vote, whatever that is.

Meanwhile California is simply bankrupt-- so what do they cut? Schools, fire departments, police, health care... but they still build unneeded highways, state buildings, and of course football stadiums and other sports arenas. Nice?
willrogers said @ 7:05am GMT on 2nd Sep
Yeah, California is fucked for the near future.


"Protecting the border" is really just an exercise in futility. It's really just not financially feasible, especially when sanctioning employers hiring illegal labor is much easier and cost-effective.

One of the main reasons people come here is for work, so if they can't be hired without severe penalty, they probably won't be as likely to come here.

As for the sports arenas, I believe the thinking is that it will bring in revenue from fans and advertisers, but that doesn't always mean they're a good idea.
maryyugo said @ 3:53pm GMT on 2nd Sep
About the sports arenas, if they are as profitable as the politicians claim, then the millionaires and billionaire players and team owners would fund them. It's a ridiculous and unnecessary boondoggle and a horrible waste of tax payer money.
willrogers said @ 5:12pm GMT on 2nd Sep
But why should they pay for the arenas when they know they can just use a bit of bribe money and get the public to pay for them?

It's the same reason oil companies still get government subsidies for exploration.
lilmookieesquire said @ 10:30am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:3 Interesting]
Image and video hosting by TinyPic
EPT said @ 10:39am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:2 Insightful]
Isn't 1835 a little bit early to be rabbiting on about fascism?
lilmookieesquire said @ 11:05am GMT on 2nd Sep
The dates wrong and it's a misquote, but I still like it :D
Nihil said @ 12:18pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:1 Insightful]
I don't, because if you're trying to point out how the exact words have been realised, then Photoshopping a cross in the picture undermines your entire point and backfires.

Especially when the actual quote is much better:

"When and if fascism comes to America it will not be labeled 'made in Germany'; it will not be marked with a swastika; it will not even be called fascism; it will be called, of course, 'Americanism.'" (Halford Luccock)
Ankylosaur said @ 2:56pm GMT on 2nd Sep
"Why does Halford Luccock hate America?" would be the standard reply to anyone using that quote.
lilmookieesquire said @ 5:54pm GMT on 2nd Sep
I think the point still stands. You're welcome to come up with a snappier more historically accurate picture.
lilmookieesquire said @ 8:46am GMT on 3rd Sep
"A misquote of Harrison Evans Salisbury's 1971 citing of Lewis: "Sinclair Lewis aptly predicted in It Can't Happen Here that if fascism came to America it would come wrapped in the flag and whistling 'The Star Spangled Banner.'"
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Sinclair_Lewis#Misattributed
Naruki said @ 2:57pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:1 Underrated]
There's nothing wrong with conservatism as an ideology
I dispute that point. I think it is inherently wrong as it stresses the idea of blanket avoidance of change.

Liberalism likewise stresses the idea of change/permit everything, which is just as bad.

Progressivism actually is one of the best ideologies from a semantic standpoint: seek progress. Beautiful.


As practiced, however, none of these seem to adhere to their semantic meanings that much.
HoZay said @ 5:57am GMT on 2nd Sep
The whack jobs that conservatives always vote for?
The Republican party has become more whack because it's become more conservative.
willrogers said @ 6:09am GMT on 2nd Sep
Exactly.

The Republican party is so conservative that even a centrist like Obama looks like a pinko commie in comparison.
maryyugo said @ 6:42am GMT on 2nd Sep
IMHO, both political parties have plenty of whack jobs to go around. I miss the few smart ones that used to be around in both parties. Far as I know, most are dead or "termed out" and replaced by the current crop of ignorant, superstitious and crooked nut cases.
willrogers said @ 7:09am GMT on 2nd Sep
Yeah, both parties suck ass, but there seems to be more crazy religious people in the Republican party.

I think a good rubric for ruling out the assholes is to ask them what they think of the ACLU.
maryyugo said @ 3:55pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Oh, I don't know. Most Southern Baptists, among the nuttiest of the nutty (but fairly harmless about violence) are Democrats. There's plenty of whackjobs to go around.
HoZay said @ 8:53pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Any citation on that?
maryyugo said @ 1:16am GMT on 3rd Sep
You need a citation to find a Southern Baptist nuts? You ever been to one of their revivals?
HoZay said @ 2:16am GMT on 3rd Sep
Nuts they be, but the ones I know haven't been democrats for years.
maryyugo said @ 6:45am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:2 Insightful]
It almost always turns out that the most conservative politician who tries to get the most restrictive laws gets caught "flagrante delicto" with his cock up some young boy's ass or his finger in an underage pussy or with a seasoned old whore in some parking lot, or dressed like a duck with an inner tube around his middle and an ignition coil wired to his dick or some similar pecadillo. The repression does that.
EPT said @ 8:17am GMT on 2nd Sep
It's pretty clear that this was a set-up. In another article he's claimed to have had 200k hits on porn sites. Now I've looked at a lot of porn sites over the years, but you'd have to multiply me quite a few times to hit 200k.

In fact, the only people who are likely to hit 200k are legitimate researchers as most people will find sites they like and tend to stick around those. But apart from that, 200k sounds far too much like someone's done a number on him.

I hate the guy, he's a total cunt, but I sincerely doubt he's been (heavily) using his work PC for porn.
Nihil said @ 9:45am GMT on 2nd Sep
Impossibly high hit counts sound like a consequence of malware infection. Then again, if that were the case he would have never admitted to it - sadly enough, harmlessly looking at porn carries harsher consequences than potentially dangerous poor computer security.

Or maybe they're both true.
ralfmaximus said @ 1:39pm GMT on 2nd Sep
Poor computer security/hygiene (no matter how scandalous) would give him political cover. ("It's not my fault the IT department sucks here!") So that's probably not the case OR he's so unsophisticated that he fails to recognize that particular out.

Most malware infections are delivered via email or by clicking naughty links. If it's a porn server registering the clicks, then it's probably malware affiliated with the porn site in question.

Ergo, he probably got infected visiting porn sites. Either that or he clicked one of those ENRAGE YOUR JOHNSON WITH v!4Gr4!!! spams.
JOHNSON said @ 3:21pm GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:3 Funny]
That makes me angry. When they do that it makes me ... so fucking mad!
antares said @ 8:19am GMT on 2nd Sep [Score:2]
Anybody remember "Swaggart Syndrome?"

Nile is nothing other than a despicable, turd-fondling cretin - out to mind the morals of the rest of the community. He is one that was in bed with Conroy - he of the "I will censor the Aust. Internets" persuasion.

Nile is on record as having prayed (read "spoken to imaginary friend who lives in the sky") to get it to rain on the Sydney Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras.

Carrier and spreader of toxic superstition and guilt.

"Crazy" and "Religious" are rapidly becoming synonyms.
willrogers said @ 5:21pm GMT on 2nd Sep
They've always been synonyms, it's just that before psychology and psychiatry, we used to confuse psychotics with prophets.

Post a comment
[note: if you are replying to a specific comment, then click the reply link on that comment instead]

You must be logged in to comment on posts.
home | home2 | Sensible Election | about | conduct | galleries not logged in | log in



Members

Registered: 24367
Classifieds

Heaven666
What has been seen cannot be un-seen

BOOBLE
Search sites, pics, movies, personals.

Best Porn
Reviews of the best porn sites with pics, vids, scene desription and member area preview

LONELY GUYS
Meet Women Near You