Andrew Laming MP finds Facebook – what can we say?

(NOTE: This post has been reposted due to a WordPress glitch which made the previous post disappear)

Politicians have recently taken enthusiastically to social media. It seems every politician from the PM down has a Facebook page and Twitter account.

However sometimes things can go a little wrong. Take Andrew Laming, MP for the Queensland Federal seat of Bowman for instance.

Andrew Laming 1

Andrew Laming 2


What can we say?

69 thoughts on “Andrew Laming MP finds Facebook – what can we say?

  1. Out of interests have any of the MMU’s or other contributors to this site ever liked a Facebook page in order to see the content, rebutt an argument or keep updated on what people are saying there? Ban the burqa? Fuck off we’re full?
    Also what exactly does this have to do with discrimination or racism or are you just trying to point out that politicians are stupid? If that’s the case, then in the near future we should expect to see a post on here about Craig Thompson. After all paying for hookers on the Union credit card would have to be just about the dumbest thing an elected official could do!

    • To our best knowledge none of the MMUs has ever joined a page in error.

      To our best knowledge Laming has never posted at any of these pages he has joined. Within the LNP he is supposed to be right at the cutting edge of new media. Hmmm.

      • Thompson simply resigned from the Labor party due to a change in his political point of view? Yeh right! Proof that Laming is trolling facebook? Or as you put it, shut it, yeah?

        • The reference to Craig Thompson was made to point how biased this post is. It has simply been put up because Mr Laming is a member of the Liberal party. As Totorific asked and you didn’t answer, would you have posted this story if it was a Labor or Green politician?

        • …would you have posted this story if it was a Labor or Green politician?

          I do believe Toto said “independent” rather than Labor. But the answer is “yes”. If you recall, we all had a laugh at a very odd neo-Nazi who put his hand up for Labor pre-selection in Lawrence Springborg’s safe LNP seat during the last Queensland elections.

          Glad I don’t live in Queensland. Seems like it’s full of oddball cranks of all political persuasions.


        • You’ve misunderstood my argument and the reason that I asked that question. The important part was not the political party (I picked green and independent because both labor and the coalition have similar views on asylum seekers) it was that the person had a political viewpoint – i.e. humane treatment of asylum seekers – that we both agree with. Would you still attack hir then for joining a facebook group that disagreed with hir viewpoints? In other words would you attack a politician you support for joining the facebook page of a group that disagrees with hir stated positions. Because that is what is being criticised in the article. Not the political position of Mr Laming but that he joined facebook groups that disagreed with his stated positions and the positions of his party. I was attempting to illustrate that what he has done in the article is not actually wrong but that you decided to take a cheap shot against Mr Laming because you did not agree with other political opinions or actions other than those the article is about. That is an incorrect argument, it’s a logical fallacy, it’s not fair or honest and it undermines real debate and real argument.

          So the question is not would you attack someone in Labor or the greens for this it’s would you attack someone who’s political positions and opinions you fully support for joining the facebook page of people who disagree with those opinions in order to follow what they are saying.

        • Labor pre-selection hardly equates to a sitting member in the Federal Parliment. Your arguments in this post have been quite lame really!

  2. Mr Laming admitted he made an error in judgement when liking a page that was negative towards Prime Minister Gillard, ie it was bad politics. He never said that he that he has liked any page as because he didn’t know what he was doing, so in the same way as you would do he has liked pages in order to monitor what people who are opposed to his views say. Would you not agree that it is very important to know what your opposition is saying about you? I’m fairly certain you do exactly the same thing. Your argument is paper thin at best.
    Also you didn’t answer my question, what has this to do with discrimination or racism. I see no mention of Mr Laming liking any racially motivated hate pages.

    • I will admit that admins don’t always discuss new posts with other admins and that the two current posts are a bit weak. The Liberal MP post was trashed by one of our admins so it’s fair to say that we don’t always see eye to eye on particular issues.

  3. I think it’s fair to post it here. But I think it’s unfair that all the news sites picked it up. And I think Craig Emerson’s comments were bullshit. We need a playground at Parliament House where all the little kiddies can get their petty snipes out of their system and get back to their jobs, actual politics.

    Still, it’s a talking point and it’s obviously starting discussions here so there’s no reason to not post it.

    • What purpose does it serve other than meaningless point scoring? Does anyone honestly believe he supports those positions? Are any of those sites controversial or offensive? No. He was following facebook pages opposed to his party, not something we should be necessarily discourage. But facebook uses the word “like” when you follow and contribute to a page so lets laugh at him because we disagree with his political positions. This kind of garbage distracts from real political debate, we should not encourage it, we should not participate in it. Talk about their disastrous social policies, don’t act like this garbage has any meaningful bearing on whether or not this person is governing well or someone we should or should not vote for.

      That it is a talking point is part of the problem.

      • Sometimes websites that post good content need to make one or two posts solely to bring in new visitors. Just like Edward Murrow on ‘See It Now’ in the 1950’s. He was bringing unbiased news, he started attacking an anti-Communist maniac, in return the producers made him run fluff pieces so that they wouldn’t alienate everyone. TAB does a damn good job at alienating people, sometimes they need to post fluff pieces so that more people will actually hear their message.

        The bottom line is that you don’t run this website, I don’t run this website. The people that do run it can do, say and post whatever the hell they want. And it’s bullshit to criticize them as they provide a free service to you, help expose racists and homophobes and fight hard against inequality in Australia 95% of the time. We don’t have the right to attack them for what they post, it’s their website.

        And really, is pointing and laughing at all the silly racists any better? Probably not, but we all love doing it anyway. You can’t really criticize this, it’s basically what this website is all about. Exposing people doing stupid shit. Many people would pin your comment ‘What purpose does it serve other than meaningless point scoring?’ to laughing at racists on Facebook, it ‘distracts from real political debate’ too.

        • There is a difference between fluff pieces and articles like this that try to do damage to some one you disagree with, not through real argument against their positions but because you can try to unfairly make them look stupid. It’s nothing but petty point scoring and it should stop.

          A current affair and today tonight are both also free and they should and are rightly criticised when they run garbage news stories. When the anti-bogan does a good job it should be praised when it does a poor job it should be criticised. That you make your website free does not immunise you from fair criticism, that’s a ridiculous argument.

          Is laughing at racists better? Yes of course it is. Racism is bad, we should mock it, we should expose it, we should do all we can to eliminate it. Following the arguments of people who disagree with your political position is not bad. I’m not saying that we should not make fun of anyone, I’m saying that we should make fun of someone when they’ve done something that deserves it. Mocking and exposing something bad serves a purpose, through it we can bring pressure to bear against racism. We can make the racists look stupid and diminish their power. We can expose the racism of groups and individuals to people who would otherwise support them but who do not support racism. It’s valuable and it serves a purpose. It doesn’t distract from real political debate because sad though it is racism exists and the fight against it is a real political debate.

        • No politician or political party is immune from criticism. Even the ones you support.

          And you’d better take it up with Limited News then, who are not exactly the friends of those who fight intolerance. All we did was to reproduce their article.

        • It’s a garbage argument to claim that your just repeating what someone else said. “just reproducing the article” is a step below “just asking the question” in terms of attempting to deflect criticism rather than address it.

          Damn straight no one should be immune from criticism, real criticism of their politics and positions. That is not present at all in the article above.

        • OK L’keson, by your reasoning. People run their own Facebook pages so they can put what the hell they like on them and should not be open to criticism? Do you see the hypocrisy in your own comment?

      • If Laming wanted to monitor pages which opposed his party he could have done what other politicians have done and monitored posts via a third party, such as one of his staffers.

        It looks stupid for a serving politician to be on the member’s list of groups which oppose his own party.

        Anyway I believe James Ashby is currently looking for a job. He might be just the person.


        • You’re coming dangerously close to my point. If it’s OK for one of his staffers to follow the page why is it wrong for Laming to follow the page? It only “looks silly” because as it stands now we have more stories about whether or not Julia Gillard lied about the carbon tax then about what the real impact of the tax would be and whether or not it’s the best way to tackle climate change. It looks silly because for some reason everyone covering politics has decided that rather than discussing real issues they are going to look for anything they can use no matter how garbage it is to try and bring down people who disagree with them. The question we should be asking before we try to use it against him is do we actually disagree with what he’s done. Has he done anything wrong or is this just a non-story that we’re jumping on because we don’t like the guy.

          When we start pushing stories like this we lose the right to complain about the bullshit stories run against our side. I’ve got some data from the US 2012 election (because I can’t find data for australian political reporting):

          This is what would be classified as a “strategy” story. Not about actual issue, but “horse race” journalism. Was this a bad move, does it reflect poorly on the party etc. Notice the percentage of journalism on actual political issues. We’re going the same way in Australia, I would not be surprised if the numbers were the same. We should not be encouraging it.

        • We didn’t say it was “OK” for a politician’s staffer to embed themselves in a social media group which opposes their own party line. We were just acknowledging that it happens.

          Anyway we would question how a sitting member of Parliament would have the time to follow the debate on a page like TAWNBPM if he/she were doing the job we pay them to do.

          Laming has form on this. Back in 2011 he was taken to task for “liking” a page which wanted to relegate PM Julia Gillard to the kitchen.

          Whatever your opinion of Gillard as PM or your opinion of her party, this sort of misogyny transcends political opposition and becomes an exercise in hating women in positions of power – something which we all oppose here at TAB.

          Maybe Laming should have listened to Thomas Tudehope.

        • I agree that the Gillard group was offensive and if the article posted was about that you’d be right but it isn’t.

          He joined under his own name with his official facebook page, don’t pretend he was doing something sinister. We really should want politicians to look at the arguments put forward by people who disagree with them. At the very least there is nothing wrong with him monitoring those groups to check that they do not post anything offensive.

          Questioning how he would have time if he was doing the job we pay him for? Honestly you are putting forward that as an argument? Do I even have to address that? If you have evidence he was not doing his job properly THAT WOULD BE A REAL STORY. That would be worth posting. Insinuating that this story provides some evidence that he is not doing his job properly is dishonest and once again should be beneath us.

          I’m going to post a question for you since you seem to be determined to throw out as many red herrings as you can to avoid directly answering my argument. If a story was published about a greens or independent senator who had joined a “stop the boats” group on facebook and then claimed that they were just monitoring the group so they could see the misinformation provided by the other side and make sure they or their party addressed that misinformation would you say they had done something wrong? Would you post an article mocking them? The only difference between that hypothetical situation and this one is that we agree with the politics of one of the people involved and disagree with the politics of the other. That does not make their actions right or wrong. If you have a problem with the politics of a person then post about that, don’t sink to this level. We need to argue against the damaging political positions of these people not make fun of them because facebook uses the word “like” and they “liked” a group that disagreed with their policies.

        • If a story was published about a greens or independent senator who had joined a “stop the boats” group on facebook and then claimed that they were just monitoring the group so they could see the misinformation provided by the other side and make sure they or their party addressed that misinformation would you say they had done something wrong?

          1. If you have such a story let us know. Some of us join groups we are opposed to in order to argue with them – difference is our time is not paid for by the taxpayer.

          2. Read what Thomas Tudehope has to say here. Tudehope is a former media adviser to Malcolm Turnbull. Remember Turnbull? Beaten to the Liberal leadership by one vote.

          3. You may recall we published in its entirety a speech made by Joe Hockey to the Victorian Islamic Council because we approved of what he had to say on that occasion. I do not recall you had problems with that.

        • Again you insinuate that this is evidence that he is not doing his job properly. That’s garbage, and even though you are doing the exact same thing you claim that it is OK in your case because you are not paid by the taxpayer. More garbage, it doesn’t matter who your employer is if you are not doing your job properly then that is bad but you do not have evidence of that. And what if some admins of this site are payed by the tax payer? what if they are civil servants, police officers or teachers. By your own argument they would then be doing something wrong. This is a garbage argument. Again if you have evidence that he is not doing his job correctly then post that. Do not insinuate that this is that evidence. You have no evidence that he even looked at those facebook pages at any point when he was on the clock. Or do you now get to control the internet habits of anyone being paid with taxpayer money while they are at home too?

          I read the link you posted. How is it evidence of Laming doing anything wrong? It’s a list of suggestions for using facebook. As for Hockey’s speech, I read it, it’s a good speech. I’m not against all liberals at all times. I’m against their bad policies when they make them and also the bad policies of the other parties.

          Here is a more relavant link because it’s exactly what you’ve been doing: The question here is whether Laming did something wrong joining those facebook pages. Saying “he shouldn’t have time” “he also joined a sexist group in the past” “we’ve said nice things about liberals before” “he could have asked a staffer to do it” does not address that argument.

        • No point arguing with MMU, it’s fairly obvious the admin who posted this is trying to push their personal political agenda. The post has been up and down like a yoyo and even criticised by other admins. With all the crap going on in Federal politics at the moment you choose to post this to try and help with some cheap political point scoring for the besieged Labor Party. Well done.
          Still no answer to the question, what has this post to do with racism or discrimination? You’re always so quick to attack others that don’t answer your questions, yet you’re more than happy to dodge the questions put to you.

        • Mr Hockey’s speech was relevant to your subject. The above post isn’t.
          The link to the page with Thomas Tudehope’s advice shows exactly that, suggestions only. Not policies or rules and being an advisor to a former leader of the Liberal party does not give those suggestions any greater significance.
          If your only argument is that Mr Laming liked a page that is derogatory to Prime Minister Gillard and misogynistic then I ask once again, why have you not featured Craig Thompson? Do you consider it not to be degrading to women and misogynistic to engage prostitutes and pay for them with Union funds?

      • I’ve had conversations with Laming on a pro Julia Gillard page I admin.
        He has repeatedly proven himself to be a misogynist jerk with no sense of wrongdoing until he is caught and and his carryings on publicised.
        He’s an inarticulate,petulant child.
        A perfect fit for the current Libs.
        Menzies must be spinning in his grave.

        • My wife and her friends with Autistic children have had personal conversations with Mr Laming regarding funding for children with Autism. They have found him to be understanding, sympathetic and empathetic. I wonder which opinion and assessment of Mr Laming holds more merit!

        • To show we are objective, I will fix your typos as well. 😉

          Of course Laming is going to be sympathetic and knowledgeable about autistic kids – he’s a doctor and ASDs would have been part of his training. That’s the easy bit.

          The tough part for him is obviously Facebook.

        • Then write that article (about dealings you had with Laming where he has been sexist/misogynist). I’d read it and it would be valuable. This is not that article.

        • Any opinion about Mr Laming’s character is irrelevant in regards to this post anyway. MMU hasn’t pointed out any of those supposed characteristics or shown any proof to substantiate those kind of claims and neither have you PeteJpete. This post is still just a cheap shot at a Liberal politicain with absolutely no relevance to what you proclaim is the purpose of this website.

        • I should have articulated that in a better way, proof that

          He has repeatedly proven himself to be a mysoginist jerk with no sense of wrongdoing until he is caught and and his carryings on publicised.
          He’s an inarticulate,petulant child.
          Proof of your accusations?
          Or shut it, yeah?

        • Yes, we are what made this post ridiculous, not the fact that it’s a blatant beat up in an attempt to embarrass an LNP member.

          **** No, I’m WITH you. I think the post is ridiculous. -TAB/MMU

        • A sympathetic, understanding qualified Doctor. Hardly sounds like the same man Petejpete is describing. I think a judgement by people who have met and spoken with Mr Laming has far more creditibilty than an obvious Labor supporter who has argued with him over the internet. Afterall I can hardly make a fair judgement of people I argue with on this site without actually meeting with them, all I can do is make assumptions that could in fact be way off the mark.
          Again you assume that Mr Laming didn’t understand Facebook because he “liked” pages that were negetative towards the Liberal party, that argument had already been torn to shreds

        • Maybe you can get on to Mark Zuckerberg and ask him to put a “participate but not like” button on Facebook. That should clear up your sensitivities to participation on pages within Facebook.

        • I wasn’t the admin who deleted the post but I tend to agree with you here GAMA, despite having large differences with you in the past over petty shit.

          I can see that deep down, Laming may possibly be a bogot, as he once liked a page about Gillard needing to get back into the kitchen (or something). But there is no evidence in this post that he did anything racist or discriminatory. He just ‘liked’ pages, and I admit that I’ve liked some shockers in the past just so I can go on and comment.

          There are quite a few admins of this website – and contrary to popular belief – we don’t all know each other. So we disagree with each other occasionally as well.

  4. Geez, some people are sensitive.

    I find this article funny and I enjoy laughing at right-wingers.

    Maybe TAB should have a humour section or have a disclaimer at the top of each blog entry, “This is satire”, “This is comedy”, “This is sarcasm”, “This is blah blah blah…”, just so some people don’t get their knickers in a twist.

    • Petty arguments over semantics.
      Pretty sad really.
      If love to provide evidence of Lamings rants against JG however the gutless fool deleted his posts AFTER he was taken to task for them.
      Weather you believe me or not us immaterial, he has form.
      You choose to ignore the truth, your call.

    • What is there to explain? There is nothing in either of those articles to implicate Mr Laming in inappropriate behaviour. Do you have any of the actual posts that were put up on the Tea Pary page to show him behaving in a non professional manner? If you go to the “fuck off we’re full” page and make a comment should we then assume you agree with them even though we don’t know what you have written? More piss weak evidence to support your argument.

  5. It’s not often I help you out but this is currently on Andrew Laming’s facebook page.

    “Should refugees get $300pw housing subsidies on top of other allowances -or should the offer be expanded to our pensioners?”

    I couldn’t work out how to do the screen shot.
    i stand corrected, at least now this post actually contains a legitimate reason to criticise!

    • Just so I’m clear because judging by the replies to my posts I’m not sure whether or not people get what I’m on about. Whether or not Laming is racist or not, whether he is a good politician or not, or a good person or not is irrelevant because the article is not about whether or not he’s racist or whether or not he’s sexist, or a good politician. It’s about him joining facebook pages that disagreed with his stated opinions and those of his party. So the question is whether or not that is wrong. You can’t say he said something racist therefore it’s OK to criticise him for joining those facebook pages. That’s a non-sequitor, logic doesn’t work like that. This fact doesn’t have any bearing on the original article.

      The reason why I get upset about stuff like this is because this kind of bullshit point scoring is becoming more prevalent than discussion of the real issues and everyone seems content to let it slide as long as it’s about someone they don’t like. Since that’s the target audience of posts like this it just gets more and more prevalent. Too many people are willing to turn politics into meaningless tribalism where anything good said about people who agree with you is right and anything bad said about people who disagree with you is wrong. I happen to believe that there are facts, that right and wrong, good and bad exist outside of the opinion you have of the person talking and that science, evidence and data should determine what is right and wrong and what is good policy and bad policy. When we abandon that and simply start assuming that we can use whether we dislike someone to determine whether they are right or wrong we lose any chance we have of having good governance.

  6. With Facebook now, you don’t have to like a group or page to leave comments.

    So by joining certain anti-Abbott, anti-Campbell and Pro-Carbon Tax pages and groups,

    I guess Andrew is going against The Liberals and Abbott wishes and not following Liberal Party rules?

    PS What does people think of Senator Jo Fisher not standing aside while her court case for shop lifting and assault was on and unlike Craig was actually found guilty of the assault charge?

  7. Hi Cara you are right we shouldn’t start with someone who uses News Ltd papers as evidence and gets the Senator name wrong LOL.

    Now back to Andrew.

    • It’s still starting if you have to throw in a snide comment, RH.

      I don’t always agree with GAMA but squabbling for the sake of it is tiresome reading.

        • lol You’ve made your point, methinks. 🙂

          I don’t love every article on any blog I read… so I’m not that bothered.

  8. With Facebook now, you don’t have to like a group or page to leave comments.
    So by joining certain anti-Abbott, anti-Campbell and Pro-Carbon Tax pages and groups, I guess Andrew is going against The Liberals and Abbott wishes and not following Liberal Party rules?

  9. How do you figure that? Do you know what the Liberal Party rules are regarding social media? Do you have it from Tony Abbott personally that he has gone against his wishes? You know none of that, you’re just making stupid assumptions as usual. As far as correcting my spelling which is what you usually do when your argument has no merit, how do you spell Sergio, Reality? or as you put it Serigo! You are the last person to be critising people for their grammar and spelling. have you never heard the saying, “people who live in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones?

    • GAMA yes I commented on Andrew but I direct also my comments towards someone like you, especially on how wrong you were, especially making stupid assumptions as usual.and because I was defending myself.

      But from this comment I well be expressing an opinion on Andrew Laming and his Facebook page, as no sorry this is not about you attacking others, because you don’t like others doing what you are doing EXPRESSING AN OPINION.

      But if you don’t like this. TOUGH!!!!

      PS Doesn’t matter if I wow got one person name wrong, if it “Sergio” or “Serigo” facts are he is still a racist.

    • GAMA I asked a question I did not make stupid assumptions as usual, as you wrongly claim again.

      As yes there is a different between a question and assumptions.

      “With Facebook now, you don’t have to like a group or page to leave comments.

      So by joining certain anti-Abbott, anti-Campbell and Pro-Carbon Tax pages and groups, I guess Andrew is going against The Liberals and Abbott wishes and not following Liberal Party rules?”

      Now don’t bother replying, as I got better things to do then reply to someone like you.

      • “So by joining certain anti-Abbott, anti-Campbell and Pro-Carbon Tax pages and groups, I guess Andrew is going against The Liberals and Abbott wishes and not following Liberal Party rules?”

        This is not a question even though you put a question mark at the end. It’s a statement. Your opinion is not based on any facts, they are based on assumptions.

        I’m more than happy to correct your grammar, seeing as you are happy to do it for everyone else and regarding the spelling of names, it is obviously ok for you to misspell a name but not me. Yes or No?

What do YOU think about this?

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s