The Greenhouse

I'm thinking these sort of people are going to start getting a lot more attention from security agencies...

Australian man is arrested after posting comments about the New Zealand terror attack which led police to seize weapons at his home: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... spartandhp

And to think young kids died for this country.

Schifty wrote:I'm thinking these sort of people are going to start getting a lot more attention from security agencies...

Australian man is arrested after posting comments about the New Zealand terror attack which led police to seize weapons at his home: https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australi ... spartandhp

Honestly, I think that’s the one positive to come from a horrific event like this


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Agreed.

Before the response to people calling this out would be that whole "You're againts free speech, trying to turn this into a PC world" BS

News corp has already started their back pedalling. They have a lot to answer for.



That was just in one year..

Ummm this is precisely what I was talking about above, but I get labelled Fraser Anning for it. This hateful speech has filtered down from the top and has to stop if we as a society want to change.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

gergreg wrote:Ummm this is precisely what I was talking about above, but I get labelled Fraser Anning for it. This hateful speech has filtered down from the top and has to stop if we as a society want to change.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Settler down Anning, or TR will egg you


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

I see the government has backflipped on their backflip rebanning Milo due to his comments after this attack.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That's a shame. White middle class losers pay a lot of money to have Milo affirm their status as a 'victim'

You weren't labelled Fraser Anning. I just pointed out that while the corpses of 49 people were still warm, you had the same obscene urge to start apportioning blame according to your own political beliefs. I think it's ugly; I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself.

TR do you think if we go through this thread we would find you doing similar when there’s been an Islamic terrorist attack killing innocents?

I think we'd find examples of what you would interpret that as being. Why don't you post 'em up and let's see.

The coalition government have a long and repugnant history of islamophobic dog whistling.

If now is not the time to call it out, when is a good time?

T_R wrote:You weren't labelled Fraser Anning. I just pointed out that while the corpses of 49 people were still warm, you had the same obscene urge to start apportioning blame according to your own political beliefs. I think it's ugly; I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself.

Ok. So you let us know when we can discuss it then, seeing as you're the moderator of discussion, when the discussion can take place, and the apportioning any sort of responsibility. Let me guess, there will never be a good time to discuss, because in this instance it looks pretty ordinary for your political beliefs?

You think my actions are obscene and I think the actions of our parliamentarians as a whole and more specifically (and most recently) the liberal party are obscene and in some way have led us to this point in time, where there is plenty of intolerance of other people and their beliefs.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Maybe when the other side of politics aren't trying to run on similar platforms. And maybe let's let the grieving families lay their dead to rest before we engage in political point scoring.

Neither the ALP or LIB party can hold their heads on these matters. Both clearly see (and sadly, rightly so) votes in this sort of politics. There is no moral high ground to be had here. Like almost everything in AUSPOL right now, its a race to the bottom.

gergreg wrote:

T_R wrote:You weren't labelled Fraser Anning. I just pointed out that while the corpses of 49 people were still warm, you had the same obscene urge to start apportioning blame according to your own political beliefs. I think it's ugly; I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself.

Ok. So you let us know when we can discuss it then, seeing as you're the moderator of discussion, when the discussion can take place, and the apportioning any sort of responsibility.

Please show me where I tried to prevent you discussing anything. You had your opinion, and I shared mine, in this case that I considered your comments distasteful and inconsistent with the real politik we face.

As for my political beliefs, I won't be voting LNP at the next election, and I didn't vote for them at that the last one. For the record, my vote went to someone pretty far to the left of the ALP, and it will most likely do so again.

So there you go.

I've been unlucky enough to be stuck on the lounge in front of the tv over the past six weeks and battling with insomnia and one of the few things to put me to sleep is the 24/7 ABC news and their regular cuts to Morrison's speeches on the medevac bill/debate and question time. Again, I am unlucky to have seen more live debate/speeches on this issue than anybody participating in this discussion here and Scomo has been ruthless, absolutely disgusting as I stated earlier.

When directly questioned about the intricacies of the Bill he stated that people smugglers weren't interested in the nuances of the Bill and he repeatedly came back to that point. He also (as per the link provided) pointed to the potential for rapists, paedophiles and murderers entering the country because of the introduction of the Bill. Now he could well have been referring to the actual asylum seekers who would try to use this new Bill to their advantage but if you are going to suggest that people smugglers aren't interested in the 'nuances' then you could also suggest that any asylum seeker or newly arrived immigrant would also not give a **** about the 'nuances' of his language. And this in turn fuels the far right who already are regularly told that housing costs are high because of immigration, infrastructure cannot cope because of immigration and that doesn't even touch on the 'terrorism' threat narrative posed by Islam and by extension immigrants.

Now during this debate Labor has tried to avoid discussing it and yes that is because of the very real fear that this was an issue they could lose the election on, but let's not forget that the Labor party were a large part of this Bill, introduced solely to improve the health of asylum seekers. You can claim there is little difference between the parties policy on this matter all you want but it's right there for all to see. The Labor party looks to have moderated their stance on the treatment of asylum seekers by way of this Bill and the Liberal party has doubled down on there's, by how they have reacted to the introduction of the Bill.

Parties are allowed to change their stance on particular policy and if the Labor party have indeed changed their policy on asylum seekers then they should be commended for it. You cannot commend the liberal party for changing their policy on same sex marriage, as many of you have done, and not then commend the Labor party for changing their stance.

There will never be a good time to discuss it because we live in a 24 hour news cycle. This atrocity has affected and will continue to affect a lot of people but the nature of the media is that this issue will sadly be bypassed by something else, probably by next week given how **** up the world is at the moment, so I don't think it is unreasonable to discuss it now.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

T_R wrote: As for my political beliefs, I won't be voting LNP at the next election, and I didn't at that the last one. For the record, my vote went to someone pretty far to the left of the ALP, and it will most likely do so again.

Turns out politics would upset a flat earther. Keep sailing left of the greens and eventually you hit the right hand side of Tony Abbott

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:

T_R wrote:You weren't labelled Fraser Anning. I just pointed out that while the corpses of 49 people were still warm, you had the same obscene urge to start apportioning blame according to your own political beliefs. I think it's ugly; I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself.

Ok. So you let us know when we can discuss it then, seeing as you're the moderator of discussion, when the discussion can take place, and the apportioning any sort of responsibility.

Please show me where I tried to prevent you discussing anything. You had your opinion, and I shared mine, in this case that I considered your comments distasteful and inconsistent with the real politik we face.

As for my political beliefs, I won't be voting LNP at the next election, and I didn't at that the last one. For the record, my vote went to someone pretty far to the left of the ALP, and it will most likely do so again.

So there you go.

Yes you've stated this repeatedly yet you're awfully defensive of this government which makes it very difficult to believe.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

You see one good party and one bad party and I see two parties both manipulating the situation to a perceived advantage. I think using 50 deaths for political point scoring is ugly, be it on the left or the right, an insomniac on a forum or a lunatic Senator, and nothing you've said has changed my thinking on that.

gergreg wrote:

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:

T_R wrote:You weren't labelled Fraser Anning. I just pointed out that while the corpses of 49 people were still warm, you had the same obscene urge to start apportioning blame according to your own political beliefs. I think it's ugly; I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself.

Ok. So you let us know when we can discuss it then, seeing as you're the moderator of discussion, when the discussion can take place, and the apportioning any sort of responsibility.

Please show me where I tried to prevent you discussing anything. You had your opinion, and I shared mine, in this case that I considered your comments distasteful and inconsistent with the real politik we face.

As for my political beliefs, I won't be voting LNP at the next election, and I didn't at that the last one. For the record, my vote went to someone pretty far to the left of the ALP, and it will most likely do so again.

So there you go.

Yes you've stated this repeatedly yet you're awfully defensive of this government which makes it very difficult to believe.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Pretty hard to respond to that. Firstly, I couldnt care less what you think. Secondly, I think your perception of my views may be coloured by your own.

I guess if you were keen enough you could ask one of the many people here on my FB account about my regular interactions and warm relationship with the local member in question, but I'm certainly not fussed enough about what you believe to be true or not to bother.

T_R wrote: ↑March 18, 2019, 8:13 pm

gergreg wrote:

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:

T_R wrote:You weren't labelled Fraser Anning. I just pointed out that while the corpses of 49 people were still warm, you had the same obscene urge to start apportioning blame according to your own political beliefs. I think it's ugly; I'm sure you'll justify it to yourself.

Ok. So you let us know when we can discuss it then, seeing as you're the moderator of discussion, when the discussion can take place, and the apportioning any sort of responsibility.

Please show me where I tried to prevent you discussing anything. You had your opinion, and I shared mine, in this case that I considered your comments distasteful and inconsistent with the real politik we face.

As for my political beliefs, I won't be voting LNP at the next election, and I didn't at that the last one. For the record, my vote went to someone pretty far to the left of the ALP, and it will most likely do so again.

So there you go.

Yes you've stated this repeatedly yet you're awfully defensive of this government which makes it very difficult to believe.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Pretty hard to respond to that. Firstly, I couldnt care less what you think. Secondly, I think your perception of my views may be coloured by your own.

I guess if you were keen enough you could ask one of the many people here on my FB account about my regular interactions and warm relationship with the local member in question, but I'm certainly not fussed enough about what you believe to be true or not to bother.

EDIT

T_R wrote:You see one good party and one bad party and I see two parties both manipulating the situation to a perceived advantage. I think using 50 deaths for political point scoring is ugly, be it on the left or the right, an insomniac on a forum or a lunatic Senator, and nothing you've said has changed my thinking on that.

We've had this discussion before. I don't see one good party and one bad party. I see one party that is a self serving pack of **** and one that is slightly worse. Of course I'm going to support the one I think is least worse. That's the nature of politics. And there you go again trying to align me with Anning. Does that make you feel better about yourself?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Actually, I contrasted you to him.

Pretty simple grammar.

T_R wrote:Actually, I contrasted you to him.

Pretty simple grammar.

Haha, things are pretty **** desperate when you start claiming victory on the internet over grammar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Can we talk about how David Koche tried to give the "Tough questions" to after spending a decade promoting the racist?

gergreg wrote:

T_R wrote:Actually, I contrasted you to him.

Pretty simple grammar.

Haha, things are pretty **** desperate when you start claiming victory on the internet over grammar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Back to making up arguments? You took offence at being compared to Anning. I explained that I had in fact constrasted him to you.

You're just being obstreperous, and it's boring to me.

I don’t want a dog in this fight.

But what are you claiming from your initial posts as demonstrating contrast over comparison?

gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2019, 5:19 am I don’t want a dog in this fight.

But what are you claiming from your initial posts as demonstrating contrast over comparison?

He was referring to the post immediately above.

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:

T_R wrote:Actually, I contrasted you to him.

Pretty simple grammar.

Haha, things are pretty **** desperate when you start claiming victory on the internet over grammar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Back to making up arguments? You took offence at being compared to Anning. I explained that I had in fact constrasted him to you.

You're just being obstreperous, and it's boring to me.

You won the internet grammar award for the day now you're making a run for the ridiculously obscure word award, and you managed to use it in a sentence. Aren't you just the cleverest person on the internet? Let's just cut to what you're trying to achieve here - you have a higher education than me - congratulations.
I honestly don't think my description of the events that took place are that unrealistic or biased but you want to argue over grammar rather than the content? If this discussion bores you then why don't you ignore it? Why have you singled out me for this nonsense when others are freely commenting on the matter, on the social media, media and political aspects?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

gergreg wrote: ↑March 19, 2019, 6:16 am

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:

T_R wrote:Actually, I contrasted you to him.

Pretty simple grammar.

Haha, things are pretty **** desperate when you start claiming victory on the internet over grammar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Back to making up arguments? You took offence at being compared to Anning. I explained that I had in fact constrasted him to you.

You're just being obstreperous, and it's boring to me.

You won the internet grammar award for the day now you're making a run for the ridiculously obscure word award, and you managed to use it in a sentence. Aren't you just the cleverest person on the internet? Let's just cut to what you're trying to achieve here - you have a higher education than me - congratulations.
I honestly don't think my description of the events that took place are that unrealistic or biased but you want to argue over grammar rather than the content? If this discussion bores you then why don't you ignore it? Why have you singled out me for this nonsense when others are freely commenting on the matter, on the social media, media and political aspects?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

With all due respect, you've lost the plot. The only grammar reference I made was to the fact that you misinterpreted my comment, and I assumed you had done so deliberately. The obsession since has been entirely your own.

What are you talking about obscure words?? Do you mean 'obstreperous'? Obscure? My 11 year old had it in his bloody spelling words for homework last year. If you think I'm being clever by using primary school vocab, that's on you, too.

This conversation has more than run its course. Have a good day.

T_R wrote:

gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2019, 5:19 am I don’t want a dog in this fight.

But what are you claiming from your initial posts as demonstrating contrast over comparison?

He was referring to the post immediately above.

Nope, not seeing it. Can you quote this example of contrast over comparison for me?

gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2019, 6:30 am

T_R wrote:

gangrenous wrote: ↑March 19, 2019, 5:19 am I don’t want a dog in this fight.

But what are you claiming from your initial posts as demonstrating contrast over comparison?

He was referring to the post immediately above.

Nope, not seeing it. Can you quote this example of contrast over comparison for me?

"I think using 50 deaths for political point scoring is ugly, be it on the left or the right, an insomniac on a forum or a lunatic Senator, and nothing you've said has changed my thinking on that."

I can't remember what you call that.... rhythmic contrast? A vs B, A vs B ..... Black vs white, noun vs noun. However you want to read it, there's certainly nothing there likening anyone to anyone else.

Honestly, I've lost interest in this a long time ago and it's clearly getting others worked up, and it's nudging 10pm here and I'm ready for a shower. I'd prefer to leave it there.

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote: ↑March 19, 2019, 6:16 am

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:

T_R wrote:Actually, I contrasted you to him.

Pretty simple grammar.

Haha, things are pretty **** desperate when you start claiming victory on the internet over grammar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Back to making up arguments? You took offence at being compared to Anning. I explained that I had in fact constrasted him to you.

You're just being obstreperous, and it's boring to me.

You won the internet grammar award for the day now you're making a run for the ridiculously obscure word award, and you managed to use it in a sentence. Aren't you just the cleverest person on the internet? Let's just cut to what you're trying to achieve here - you have a higher education than me - congratulations.
I honestly don't think my description of the events that took place are that unrealistic or biased but you want to argue over grammar rather than the content? If this discussion bores you then why don't you ignore it? Why have you singled out me for this nonsense when others are freely commenting on the matter, on the social media, media and political aspects?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

With all due respect, you've lost the plot. The only grammar reference I made was to the fact that you misinterpreted my comment, and I assumed you had done so deliberately. The obsession since has been entirely your own.

What are you talking about obscure words?? Do you mean 'obstreperous'? Obscure? My 11 year old had it in his bloody spelling words for homework last year. If you think I'm being clever by using primary school vocab, that's on you, too.

This conversation has more than run its course. Have a good day.

Of course. We use obstreperous regularly in the T_R household, but probably about 4 times a half when I'm rubbing elbow patches with my colleagues at a Brumbies vs Reds game - in the Corporate box I should add.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

You’re discussing the same attribute you’re ascribing to gerg and the senator.

Sounds more like a comparison than contrast to me. Think your grammar argument is Bull.