The GH is a safe place to air your concerns. Name 5.simo wrote:it would have allowed for a genuine discussion about the facts against gay marriage, of which i assume there are thousands but people dont get a chance to air them out of fear.greeneyed wrote:Given the plebiscite was not intended to be binding... can anyone explain what it achieves? I doubt the result would change a single parliamentarian's mind.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The Politics Thread 2016
Moderator: GH Moderators
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
i assume youre new here? Hi, im simoGreen eyed Mick wrote:The GH is a safe place to air your concerns. Name 5.simo wrote:it would have allowed for a genuine discussion about the facts against gay marriage, of which i assume there are thousands but people dont get a chance to air them out of fear.greeneyed wrote:Given the plebiscite was not intended to be binding... can anyone explain what it achieves? I doubt the result would change a single parliamentarian's mind.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Dont delete this GE
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
You said there are thousands of reasons people don't discuss the facts against marriage equality. I will settle for 5.simo wrote:i assume youre new here? Hi, im simoGreen eyed Mick wrote:The GH is a safe place to air your concerns. Name 5.simo wrote:it would have allowed for a genuine discussion about the facts against gay marriage, of which i assume there are thousands but people dont get a chance to air them out of fear.greeneyed wrote:Given the plebiscite was not intended to be binding... can anyone explain what it achieves? I doubt the result would change a single parliamentarian's mind.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'm a reasonable person and a supporter of marriage equality. I will go first.
Reason 1. LGBTI people are people and all people have a right to be treated equally under the law.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
oh mick. Mick mick mickGreen eyed Mick wrote:You said there are thousands of reasons people don't discuss the facts against marriage equality. I will settle for 5.simo wrote:i assume youre new here? Hi, im simoGreen eyed Mick wrote:The GH is a safe place to air your concerns. Name 5.simo wrote:it would have allowed for a genuine discussion about the facts against gay marriage, of which i assume there are thousands but people dont get a chance to air them out of fear.greeneyed wrote:Given the plebiscite was not intended to be binding... can anyone explain what it achieves? I doubt the result would change a single parliamentarian's mind.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I'm a reasonable person and a supporter of marriage equality. I will go first.
Reason 1. LGBTI people are people and all people have a right to be treated equally under the law.
Dont delete this GE
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
GEM I think you'll find Simo was being sarcastic.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Pretty much sums it up and can understand why the government did and are surprised they said no. Every other **** sandwich they've previously been offered under the guise of equality they've grudgingly accepted, it's good to see the community has developed the backbone (largely thanks I'm guessing to the support of the majority of Australia) to say no it's not good enough.Green eyed Mick wrote:
The government essentially offered the LGBTI community a **** sandwich
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
-
- Steve Walters
- Posts: 7426
- Joined: August 13, 2008, 3:39 pm
- Favourite Player: Bae
- Location: Canberra
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
You watch my educational video, mate?
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Haha yes mate, bit simplistic an idea though when we're talking mass media advertising
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
- gangrenous
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16705
- Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Here are my thoughts updated.
I don't think anyone in here thinks the plebiscite is the best way to Marriage Equality. I think everyone agrees a parliamentary vote is best, no?
So the Liberals have the power to go with the best option, and they don't. They offer the plebiscite as the long winding **** way to marriage equality.
Labor have the best option as their policy, but they lost the election and are now blocking the long winding **** way which appears to be the only hope for ME in the next three years.
I think that there is then far too much "I'm definitely right and you're definitely wrong" from those who are pro ME but against a plebiscite and those pro ME but for the plebiscite. There are reasonable, rational arguments in favour of both. I think it comes very much down to personal opinion/experience/network.
- If you're person A and you largely have gay friends who have been couples for years and years and just want to be married, they probably don't care about what the ACL say because they're older, they know themselves, and they're now beyond caring about the Bull. You're probably happy for the plebiscite just to get this over with.
- If you're person B and you know a gay teen who's told you that bullies have been harassing them about this, telling them their dad's voting No so that they can't marry Mr.X the principal, and putting ACL posters on their locker. Well there's not much cost to your teen friend waiting 2.5 years. You're probably in favour of ditching the plebiscite because the emotional toll and monetary cost aren't worth it.
Ultimately all of this should not be a problem. It shouldn't come down to squabbling over whether the positives of the half-rate measure outweigh the negatives. But it has, and for that I blame the Liberal party, and Malcolm Turnbull's strategy in particular. If he had the guts to tell the right to piss off before the election, he wins in a landslide and they'd find it hard to justify ousting him. Now because he offered no change the electorate didn't support him, and leaves him in a position of having to bow to the right or he will be gone.
In general I think marriage equality advocates should have more time for those who are on the other side of the plebiscite argument. They're valid reasons for both. Blaming Labor for their position is doing the same thing (although I will concede that Labor's choice of sides is probably dominantly swayed by what **** up Liberal more). More blame to go to Liberals for being stupid and or poor tacticians I say.
Let's do a parliamentary vote.
I don't think anyone in here thinks the plebiscite is the best way to Marriage Equality. I think everyone agrees a parliamentary vote is best, no?
So the Liberals have the power to go with the best option, and they don't. They offer the plebiscite as the long winding **** way to marriage equality.
Labor have the best option as their policy, but they lost the election and are now blocking the long winding **** way which appears to be the only hope for ME in the next three years.
I think that there is then far too much "I'm definitely right and you're definitely wrong" from those who are pro ME but against a plebiscite and those pro ME but for the plebiscite. There are reasonable, rational arguments in favour of both. I think it comes very much down to personal opinion/experience/network.
- If you're person A and you largely have gay friends who have been couples for years and years and just want to be married, they probably don't care about what the ACL say because they're older, they know themselves, and they're now beyond caring about the Bull. You're probably happy for the plebiscite just to get this over with.
- If you're person B and you know a gay teen who's told you that bullies have been harassing them about this, telling them their dad's voting No so that they can't marry Mr.X the principal, and putting ACL posters on their locker. Well there's not much cost to your teen friend waiting 2.5 years. You're probably in favour of ditching the plebiscite because the emotional toll and monetary cost aren't worth it.
Ultimately all of this should not be a problem. It shouldn't come down to squabbling over whether the positives of the half-rate measure outweigh the negatives. But it has, and for that I blame the Liberal party, and Malcolm Turnbull's strategy in particular. If he had the guts to tell the right to piss off before the election, he wins in a landslide and they'd find it hard to justify ousting him. Now because he offered no change the electorate didn't support him, and leaves him in a position of having to bow to the right or he will be gone.
In general I think marriage equality advocates should have more time for those who are on the other side of the plebiscite argument. They're valid reasons for both. Blaming Labor for their position is doing the same thing (although I will concede that Labor's choice of sides is probably dominantly swayed by what **** up Liberal more). More blame to go to Liberals for being stupid and or poor tacticians I say.
Let's do a parliamentary vote.
The Politics Thread 2016
For the most part I can agree with that post
The major area of disagreement for me is the idea that Turnbull could have just told the far right to **** off and won the election in a landslide
He would never have made it to an election to win in said landslide if he told them to **** off. He'd have been ousted for someone who was more aligned to the party's power base
Edit: and maybe Turnbull should have told them to **** off anyways and at least he'd be able to hold his head up high on the matter, but I'm not naive enough to believe politicians are any different to you or I, and they do what is best for their own careers. Turnbull insisting on a parliamentary vote would be career suicide
The major area of disagreement for me is the idea that Turnbull could have just told the far right to **** off and won the election in a landslide
He would never have made it to an election to win in said landslide if he told them to **** off. He'd have been ousted for someone who was more aligned to the party's power base
Edit: and maybe Turnbull should have told them to **** off anyways and at least he'd be able to hold his head up high on the matter, but I'm not naive enough to believe politicians are any different to you or I, and they do what is best for their own careers. Turnbull insisting on a parliamentary vote would be career suicide
-
- Brett Mullins
- Posts: 1213
- Joined: February 12, 2013, 11:11 pm
- Favourite Player: Sam Backo
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
I fairly strongly agree with all this, with an added kicker. Plebiscites as a means of deciding legislation are wrong. Pretty much the sole justification for full time, well salaried Parliamentarians is that the time and lack of financial hardship allows them to study all the ramifications, and ultimate desirability of each piece of legislation presented and then making a decision on behalf of the electorate they represent. Allowing them to handpass any complex or contentious matter to a plebiscite where most voters tend to make decisions based on simplistic evidence or personal predjudices not necessarily based on any reputable evidence is not what the nation needs and is an abrogation of their responsibilities as Parliamentarians. If they are not up to the job they were elected to perform they should resign and allow themselves to be replaced by a competent replacement. Having a "non binding" plebiscite is even worse, it is just a hugely expensive time waster designed to achieve nothing.gangrenous wrote:Here are my thoughts updated.
I don't think anyone in here thinks the plebiscite is the best way to Marriage Equality. I think everyone agrees a parliamentary vote is best, no?
So the Liberals have the power to go with the best option, and they don't. They offer the plebiscite as the long winding **** way to marriage equality.
Labor have the best option as their policy, but they lost the election and are now blocking the long winding **** way which appears to be the only hope for ME in the next three years.
I think that there is then far too much "I'm definitely right and you're definitely wrong" from those who are pro ME but against a plebiscite and those pro ME but for the plebiscite. There are reasonable, rational arguments in favour of both. I think it comes very much down to personal opinion/experience/network.
- If you're person A and you largely have gay friends who have been couples for years and years and just want to be married, they probably don't care about what the ACL say because they're older, they know themselves, and they're now beyond caring about the Bull. You're probably happy for the plebiscite just to get this over with.
- If you're person B and you know a gay teen who's told you that bullies have been harassing them about this, telling them their dad's voting No so that they can't marry Mr.X the principal, and putting ACL posters on their locker. Well there's not much cost to your teen friend waiting 2.5 years. You're probably in favour of ditching the plebiscite because the emotional toll and monetary cost aren't worth it.
Ultimately all of this should not be a problem. It shouldn't come down to squabbling over whether the positives of the half-rate measure outweigh the negatives. But it has, and for that I blame the Liberal party, and Malcolm Turnbull's strategy in particular. If he had the guts to tell the right to piss off before the election, he wins in a landslide and they'd find it hard to justify ousting him. Now because he offered no change the electorate didn't support him, and leaves him in a position of having to bow to the right or he will be gone.
In general I think marriage equality advocates should have more time for those who are on the other side of the plebiscite argument. They're valid reasons for both. Blaming Labor for their position is doing the same thing (although I will concede that Labor's choice of sides is probably dominantly swayed by what **** up Liberal more). More blame to go to Liberals for being stupid and or poor tacticians I say.
Let's do a parliamentary vote.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Either way now though it's career suicide, his popularity with the public is dropping too far and with continued pressure will only continue to drop, he basically has a decision IMO of how he wants to go out, guns blazing for what's right and see his popularity rise or go out cowering to his puppet masters, how does he want his time in charge remembered.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
- reptar
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16060
- Joined: January 25, 2005, 9:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Jordan Rapana
- Location: Brisbane
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Does anyone think George Christensen is up to the job?
Gina Riley: Oh, come on, John. That’s a bit old hat, the corrupt IOC delegate.
John Clarke: Old hat? Gina, in the scientific world when they see that something is happening again and again and again, repeatedly, they don’t call it old hat. They call it a pattern.
John Clarke: Old hat? Gina, in the scientific world when they see that something is happening again and again and again, repeatedly, they don’t call it old hat. They call it a pattern.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
He's up to it as much as Trump is
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
@Nickmanreptar wrote:Does anyone think George Christensen is up to the job?
Your mate
-
- Mal Meninga
- Posts: 51206
- Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
- Favourite Player: Hodgo
- Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
The Politics Thread 2016
One thing I do know is that if Georgie Boy somehow became prime minister of Australia I'm rocking up to his dorm room at Parliament House with a goon bag under each arm and wearing a goon box on my head to celebrate!
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Think a white sheet on your head would be more appropriate attire around George
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
If it wasn't for a couple nationals threatening to bring down the government we would have Marriage Equality passed by now.
Turnbull should call their Bull bluff.. What are they going to do? Form a coalition with Labor?
Even if they voted no confidence and a new election was called they would have to campaign against their sugar daddy and become even less relevant as Libs would put candidates in all their seats.
They'd eventually become even more irrelevant in the senate as well.
Turnbull should call their Bull bluff.. What are they going to do? Form a coalition with Labor?
Even if they voted no confidence and a new election was called they would have to campaign against their sugar daddy and become even less relevant as Libs would put candidates in all their seats.
They'd eventually become even more irrelevant in the senate as well.
-
- Steve Walters
- Posts: 7426
- Joined: August 13, 2008, 3:39 pm
- Favourite Player: Bae
- Location: Canberra
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
If he has a spinning clothesline, I'm there with bells on. Love me some goon of fortune!The Nickman wrote:One thing I do know is that if Georgie Boy somehow became prime minister of Australia I'm rocking up to his dorm room at Parliament House with a goon bag under each arm and wearing a goon box on my head to celebrate!
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Thegh needs more boxhead !!!The Nickman wrote:One thing I do know is that if Georgie Boy somehow became prime minister of Australia I'm rocking up to his dorm room at Parliament House with a goon bag under each arm and wearing a goon box on my head to celebrate!
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Yep and if marriage equality has the numbers within his party as has been suggested what's he got to fear, time to put the Nationals in their place.Schifty wrote:If it wasn't for a couple nationals threatening to bring down the government we would have Marriage Equality passed by now.
Turnbull should call their Bull bluff.. What are they going to do? Form a coalition with Labor?
Even if they voted no confidence and a new election was called they would have to campaign against their sugar daddy and become even less relevant as Libs would put candidates in all their seats.
They'd eventually become even more irrelevant in the senate as well.
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
-
- Steve Walters
- Posts: 7426
- Joined: August 13, 2008, 3:39 pm
- Favourite Player: Bae
- Location: Canberra
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
I watched your mate JJ recently on Netflix - thought it was quite good, but thought he spent too long talking about toilet training his son.
Off topic, I know, but what of it!?
Off topic, I know, but what of it!?
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
I imagine that will be his plan once the plebiscite vote fails.
Have another meeting of the liberals see if they can allow a free vote.
Have another meeting of the liberals see if they can allow a free vote.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
What a gameProfessor wrote:If he has a spinning clothesline, I'm there with bells on. Love me some goon of fortune!The Nickman wrote:One thing I do know is that if Georgie Boy somehow became prime minister of Australia I'm rocking up to his dorm room at Parliament House with a goon bag under each arm and wearing a goon box on my head to celebrate!
-
- Steve Walters
- Posts: 7426
- Joined: August 13, 2008, 3:39 pm
- Favourite Player: Bae
- Location: Canberra
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Haha yeah. Do you go just wine? We usually get the worst of worst wine as our "bankrupt",Pigman wrote:What a gameProfessor wrote:If he has a spinning clothesline, I'm there with bells on. Love me some goon of fortune!The Nickman wrote:One thing I do know is that if Georgie Boy somehow became prime minister of Australia I'm rocking up to his dorm room at Parliament House with a goon bag under each arm and wearing a goon box on my head to celebrate!
whilst including one bag of a vodka mix for "top dollar". The rest is low to mid range wine.
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Just goon for me back in the day, of varying quality haha
That vodka mix for top dollar sounds like an excellent adjustment! Haha
That vodka mix for top dollar sounds like an excellent adjustment! Haha
-
- Steve Walters
- Posts: 7426
- Joined: August 13, 2008, 3:39 pm
- Favourite Player: Bae
- Location: Canberra
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Oh, it's the best. Landing on it when in need for respite is the lick. Especially for me as if I land on a red I'm **** - don't like it at all.Pigman wrote:Just goon for me back in the day, of varying quality haha
That vodka mix for top dollar sounds like an excellent adjustment! Haha
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Seen too many can't remember that bit, suffering from new dad syndrome I'm guessing can't shut up about the smallest detail.Professor wrote:I watched your mate JJ recently on Netflix - thought it was quite good, but thought he spent too long talking about toilet training his son.
Off topic, I know, but what of it!?
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
-
- Steve Walters
- Posts: 7426
- Joined: August 13, 2008, 3:39 pm
- Favourite Player: Bae
- Location: Canberra
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
This is the newest one, I believe.Manbush wrote:Seen too many can't remember that bit, suffering from new dad syndrome I'm guessing can't shut up about the smallest detail.Professor wrote:I watched your mate JJ recently on Netflix - thought it was quite good, but thought he spent too long talking about toilet training his son.
Off topic, I know, but what of it!?
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Pretty disappointed in our club sending out this sort of thing!
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
-
- Jason Croker
- Posts: 4380
- Joined: July 4, 2006, 12:36 pm
Re: ACT Opposition refuse to commit to new Canberra Stadium
Anyone else get an SMS from "RaidersGrP" telling them to vote Liberal?
Re: ACT Opposition refuse to commit to new Canberra Stadium
Pretty disappointed to be honest.
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Canberra liberals sound an open bunch, spotted before Jeremy Hanson blocked Sex Partys Andrew Dewson on Twitter
I bow down to thee oh great Nickman, the wisest of the wise, your political adroitness is unsurpassed, your sagacity is unmatched, your wisdom shines through on this forum amongst us mere mortals as bright as your scalp under the light of a full moon, never shall I doubt your analytical prowess again. You are my hero, my lord, my savior, may you accept my offerings so you continue to bless us with your genius.
-
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 13407
- Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
- Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
- Location: Canberra :(
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Agree. I don't want my football club telling me who to vote for.100%green wrote:
Pretty disappointed in our club sending out this sort of thing!
Sent from my SM-N910G using Tapatalk
- reptar
- Laurie Daley
- Posts: 16060
- Joined: January 25, 2005, 9:24 pm
- Favourite Player: Jordan Rapana
- Location: Brisbane
Re: The Politics Thread 2016
Can i marry yet?
Gina Riley: Oh, come on, John. That’s a bit old hat, the corrupt IOC delegate.
John Clarke: Old hat? Gina, in the scientific world when they see that something is happening again and again and again, repeatedly, they don’t call it old hat. They call it a pattern.
John Clarke: Old hat? Gina, in the scientific world when they see that something is happening again and again and again, repeatedly, they don’t call it old hat. They call it a pattern.