The Politics Thread 2014

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9581
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread

Post by gangrenous » November 23, 2014, 7:54 pm

So essentially you want to agree with me now? That took a while.

What in your post there runs contrary to anything I've written?

User avatar
PigRickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25110
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by PigRickman » November 23, 2014, 7:59 pm

If you agree that our policy on this should mirror our impact on the issue, and we should only go down this path if the major contributors are also taking this challenge up, AND all australias are made to foot the bill equally rather than lump it at the feet of one socioeconomic group, then yes i completely agree.

If that's your position, we absolutely agree, but you certainly havent made that clear
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR, Tinfoil hatted Gangers and Woody, anyone in Raiders HQ who can point to QBN on a map....

Matt wrote:
July 18, 2018, 3:49 pm
Edrick Lee 5. Jordan Rapana
Matt wrote:
June 25, 2019, 9:29 pm
Reed Mahoney 9. Josh Hodgson ©
Coaching Power Rankings: Ricky Stuart - Top 2, and he ain't 2.

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9581
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by gangrenous » November 23, 2014, 8:03 pm

Yep that's me, it's not my fault you chose to assume I'm arguing points I haven't.

User avatar
BJ
David Furner
Posts: 3662
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by BJ » November 23, 2014, 8:43 pm

But with the carbon tax we were only making a minimal effort to do the right thing. A few billion dollars in extra tax. Big deal! we can't choose to say we had a big tax per head of population and then not use per head of population when talking about our emissions.

The way some people talk you would think Australia must have forgone 88% of GDP to implement a tax on carbon.

Labor should have set the carbon tax at $8 a tonne indexed than no one would have been able to complain too much and we could have told the world we were making a difference and setting a great example. Missed opportunity.

I will stop now as I feel global warming being discussed and analysed on an internet forum is like trying to encapsulate the encyclopaedia brittanica into a 2 page brief.

Actually I only need one argument, Alan Jones and Rupert Murdoch don't believe in climate change. Meanwhile Alan Jones won't admit he is gay and Murdoch won't admit he stops his news channels from reporting negatively about himself.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » November 23, 2014, 9:03 pm

gangrenous wrote:I just said I am willing to pay for it T_R. Try harder.
So would, hypothetically, but haven't. Sounds like you're all talk to me.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9581
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by gangrenous » November 24, 2014, 6:16 am

Yep, you can't actually refute my points, so go after me on things I can't possibly prove? I am perfectly willing to contribute my share.

T_R plays the man and not the ball again. To quote pigman "imagine my surprise".

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » November 24, 2014, 8:44 am

gangrenous wrote:Yep, you can't actually refute my points, so go after me on things I can't possibly prove? I am perfectly willing to contribute my share.

T_R plays the man and not the ball again. To quote pigman "imagine my surprise".
Your points have been refuted, and you have countered and I have responded and so on. We have both made our feelings clear. That I can't be bothered picking together an email that described some 'imagined' hypothetical world I don't feel too bad about.

I am shocked, however, that someone who seems to believe so strongly in all of this has done nothing himself. Is that playing the man? I guess it's a question of individual responsibility. You say that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but have done nothing at a personal level to do so. You talk about all those little 1%s that add up to so much, yet won't contribute yourself. You talk about the moral responsibility, yet have shown none yourself.

Oh, you say 'you would', but you haven't. At some point, those 'woulds' need to become 'I have' - and yours haven't.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » November 24, 2014, 8:54 am


Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » November 24, 2014, 9:18 am

Lambie has left PUP and is now an Independent.

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Stuat » November 24, 2014, 9:45 am

One of the reasons we want to start acting on climate change is simply that, in the near/medium term, renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuel energy and we want that transition to be as smooth as possible, so it doesn't completely disrupt the greater economy. That's a good reason for policies like the RET, CEFC etc, which make sense economically, especially in the long term. They mean cheaper energy and a vibrant renewable energy sector into the future, which will balance the upcoming decline of coal.

It's no coincidence that "divestment" of fossil fuels is now being acted upon by banks, the ANU etc... They aren't divesting "for the greater good", that's just a nice PR boost, they are divesting because coal etc etc are pretty dodgy investments that are becoming riskier and riskier (you just have to look at some of the policy decisions being made in India and China to see why).

Acting on climate change for a small country like us isn't just about "how much will it reduce climate change", it's also about setting up the economy so it doesn't get left behind by other developed nations and remains competitive into the future. Relying on fissile fuels won't achieve that.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » November 24, 2014, 10:30 am

Hang on.....you mean that Labor policy of taxing high income earners and then redistributing that income as welfare supplements was NOT good climate change policy???
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Stuat » November 24, 2014, 11:42 am

T_R wrote:Hang on.....you mean that Labor policy of taxing high income earners and then redistributing that income as welfare supplements was NOT good climate change policy???
It was fine, it was effective policy that would have achieved our 5% reduction in emissions in the cheapest possible way.

I'm not sure if you noticed TR, but the carbon tax is old news, it was rejected emphatically by the electorate. So while pricing carbon makes the most sense when it comes to decreasing emissions (cheaper, more efficient, uses the market etc etc etc) it's off the table in Australia for the foreseeable future. The debate moved on...

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » November 24, 2014, 11:48 am

Stuat wrote:
T_R wrote:Hang on.....you mean that Labor policy of taxing high income earners and then redistributing that income as welfare supplements was NOT good climate change policy???
It was fine, it was effective policy that would have achieved our 5% reduction in emissions in the cheapest possible way.

I'm not sure if you noticed TR, but the carbon tax is old news, it was rejected emphatically by the electorate. So while pricing carbon makes the most sense when it comes to decreasing emissions (cheaper, more efficient, uses the market etc etc etc) it's off the table in Australia for the foreseeable future. The debate moved on...
Actually, I think it is very relevant.

I think it showed that there is a lot more political hubris in this discussion than there is actual commitment to dealing with the issues. Somehow managing to stir welfare reform into the climate change pot meant that the government stumbled on both. And while I agree it's dangerous to get too hung up on the past, we're hardly talking ancient history here, either.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Stuat » November 24, 2014, 1:55 pm

T_R wrote:
Stuat wrote:
T_R wrote:Hang on.....you mean that Labor policy of taxing high income earners and then redistributing that income as welfare supplements was NOT good climate change policy???
It was fine, it was effective policy that would have achieved our 5% reduction in emissions in the cheapest possible way.

I'm not sure if you noticed TR, but the carbon tax is old news, it was rejected emphatically by the electorate. So while pricing carbon makes the most sense when it comes to decreasing emissions (cheaper, more efficient, uses the market etc etc etc) it's off the table in Australia for the foreseeable future. The debate moved on...
Actually, I think it is very relevant.

I think it showed that there is a lot more political hubris in this discussion than there is actual commitment to dealing with the issues. Somehow managing to stir welfare reform into the climate change pot meant that the government stumbled on both. And while I agree it's dangerous to get too hung up on the past, we're hardly talking ancient history here, either.
Well, at the moment it is off the table- so it's hardly front and centre to the Australian debate as it stands. From an economics 101 perspective, that isn't a good thing, carbon pricing is the cheapest most efficient way of reducing CO2 emissions. All the other options (RET, direct action etc) are a lot more expensive per ton and will cost tax payers a lot more money for the same reduction overall...

The political missteps you are talking about are why we don't and won't have a carbon price in Australia for 6+ years. Eventually, it will be back on the table though and we will have a carbon tax because economics. Until then though, it's policies like RET, direct action etc etc. Its also about strategic management of the economic circumstances we will face in the near future- reduced demand for coal etc etc and what we do about that and how we maintain a competitive economy in a low CO2 emissions world, which is coming. For us, being small, that's more important than just a "doing our part" thing. Poor management of those issues, will have big negative economic effects. The lib move to abolish the RET for example has already demolished investment in renewable energy in OZ (due to uncertainty and sovereign risk), an area that should be giving us strong jobs growth and in the not to distant future cheaper energy. That's not good for most people, it's not good for energy prices, it's not good for the Australian economy. There are more things to take into account here than just reducing CO2 emissions.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » November 24, 2014, 2:00 pm

Actually, I think for the first time ever, I just agreed with every word of a Stuat post.

This may be just because I don't know enough about the RET to argue with him, but I'll enjoy the fuzzy moment anyway.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

Stuat
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6860
Joined: July 9, 2005, 9:41 am

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Stuat » November 24, 2014, 2:04 pm

T_R wrote:Actually, I think for the first time ever, I just agreed with every word of a Stuat post.

This may be just because I don't know enough about the RET to argue with him, but I'll enjoy the fuzzy moment anyway.
Not sure how I feel about this TR ;)

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » November 24, 2014, 2:10 pm

Help Chris Pyne save the ABC in SA or just have a laugh at Pyne's expense.

https://www.change.org/p/chairman-james ... n-adelaide

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » November 24, 2014, 2:31 pm

Stuat wrote:
T_R wrote:Actually, I think for the first time ever, I just agreed with every word of a Stuat post.

This may be just because I don't know enough about the RET to argue with him, but I'll enjoy the fuzzy moment anyway.
Not sure how I feel about this TR ;)
My own personal world just tilted a little on its axis, let me tell you.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9581
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by gangrenous » November 24, 2014, 4:54 pm

T_R wrote: I am shocked, however, that someone who seems to believe so strongly in all of this has done nothing himself. Is that playing the man? I guess it's a question of individual responsibility. You say that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but have done nothing at a personal level to do so. You talk about all those little 1%s that add up to so much, yet won't contribute yourself. You talk about the moral responsibility, yet have shown none yourself.

Oh, you say 'you would', but you haven't. At some point, those 'woulds' need to become 'I have' - and yours haven't.
By your logic I couldn't support the NDIS if I hadn't dedicated my life to helping disabled people, or donated huge sums of money to the disabled.

At least what I've said in here is self-consistent. On the other hand, you are worried about climate change allegedly and spend your time pissing on people who say they'd like to see more done. Largely because you seem to imagine this implies a whole lot of stuff they didn't write.

You can keep your Bull.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » November 24, 2014, 5:12 pm

gangrenous wrote:
T_R wrote: I am shocked, however, that someone who seems to believe so strongly in all of this has done nothing himself. Is that playing the man? I guess it's a question of individual responsibility. You say that this is an issue that needs to be addressed, but have done nothing at a personal level to do so. You talk about all those little 1%s that add up to so much, yet won't contribute yourself. You talk about the moral responsibility, yet have shown none yourself.

Oh, you say 'you would', but you haven't. At some point, those 'woulds' need to become 'I have' - and yours haven't.
By your logic I couldn't support the NDIS if I hadn't dedicated my life to helping disabled people, or donated huge sums of money to the disabled.

At least what I've said in here is self-consistent. On the other hand, you are worried about climate change allegedly and spend your time pissing on people who say they'd like to see more done. Largely because you seem to imagine this implies a whole lot of stuff they didn't write.

You can keep your Bull.
What a remarkable response. To suggest that you have to 'dedicate your life' or donate 'huge sums' to something is an absurd extrapolation....perhaps you should have stowed your own Bull.

I am also completely consistent. I believe that climate change is a concern. I just find the 'something must be done...I just don't know what' line amusing. Where sensible steps, such as those suggested by Stuat, can be taken they would have my full support. Your little idea that Australia could somehow provide moral leadership on this I did indeed find piss-worthy.

Your own refusal to take even simple steps to reduce your personal contribution to the problem (' I don't mind paying, but haven't ') shows me too that you're just another bandwagoner, happy to cheer along while others are paying, but certainly not willing to show any of that much vaunted leadership yourself.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
gangrenous
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9581
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by gangrenous » November 24, 2014, 6:19 pm

T_R wrote: your house IS entirely off the grid, right? You drive an electric car, right? to lead.
Forgive me for thinking ridiculous extrapolations weren't on the table...

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16308
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Schifty » November 24, 2014, 9:44 pm

James Cromwell is a genius.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15735
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by T_R » November 24, 2014, 11:00 pm

gangrenous wrote:
T_R wrote: your house IS entirely off the grid, right? You drive an electric car, right? to lead.
Forgive me for thinking ridiculous extrapolations weren't on the table...
Why on earth would two such small things be wild extrapolation?

Seems to me that you just lack and kind of personal commitment. :nooo
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.

User avatar
Seiffert82
Mal Meninga
Posts: 21645
Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
Favourite Player: Bay56

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Seiffert82 » November 25, 2014, 6:12 am

Stuat wrote:One of the reasons we want to start acting on climate change is simply that, in the near/medium term, renewable energy will be cheaper than fossil fuel energy and we want that transition to be as smooth as possible, so it doesn't completely disrupt the greater economy. That's a good reason for policies like the RET, CEFC etc, which make sense economically, especially in the long term. They mean cheaper energy and a vibrant renewable energy sector into the future, which will balance the upcoming decline of coal.

It's no coincidence that "divestment" of fossil fuels is now being acted upon by banks, the ANU etc... They aren't divesting "for the greater good", that's just a nice PR boost, they are divesting because coal etc etc are pretty dodgy investments that are becoming riskier and riskier (you just have to look at some of the policy decisions being made in India and China to see why).

Acting on climate change for a small country like us isn't just about "how much will it reduce climate change", it's also about setting up the economy so it doesn't get left behind by other developed nations and remains competitive into the future. Relying on fissile fuels won't achieve that.
I agree 100% and was pretty much what I was saying earlier. This is exactly the right debate to have.

It's like watching a train crash in slow motion seeing Tony Abbott trying to step us back into the 1950's with his rhetoric about the coal industry while gutting the country of any meaningful research and development funding. Is this seriously the best leadership this country has to offer? Unbelievable.

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » November 25, 2014, 6:52 am

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/comment ... 1sxgd.html

It is fascinating how little attention gets paid to North Korea.

User avatar
Seiffert82
Mal Meninga
Posts: 21645
Joined: March 17, 2007, 12:24 pm
Favourite Player: Bay56

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Seiffert82 » November 26, 2014, 6:14 am

North Korea are lucky they don't have large oil reserves, otherwise the US would have been furious about their human rights abuses for decades.

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16308
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Schifty » November 26, 2014, 7:42 am

Or they would just turn a blind eye to it like Saudi Arabia in return for favours..

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » November 27, 2014, 9:49 am

Another headache coming up for Abbott. Just allow a conscience vote.

http://www.canberratimes.com.au/federal ... 1udoc.html

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 43016
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by The Rickman » November 27, 2014, 10:03 am

:doubt:
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16308
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Schifty » November 27, 2014, 9:52 pm

UK has been a bit quiet in the **** crazy politicians lately, but thankfully the UKIP leader has stepped up big time.

Ukip says babies born to immigrants in the UK should be classed as migrants – which would include Nigel Farage’s own children

Nigel Farage’s Ukip has called for the children of immigrants to themselves be classed as migrants – despite the fact that the party leader’s own two children would be included in that number.

The party highlighted a report issued today by the right-wing thinktank MigrationWatch UK, which said immigration’s impact on population growth had been underestimated by more than 1.3 million because babies of those coming to this country were not taken into account.

Read more: http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po ... 84841.html

User avatar
Schifty
Laurie Daley
Posts: 16308
Joined: March 14, 2010, 4:00 pm
Favourite Player: Josh Hodgson

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Schifty » November 30, 2014, 9:41 am

News Corp :lol:

Image

Shadow Boxer
Ricky Stuart
Posts: 9176
Joined: May 20, 2008, 2:50 pm

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Shadow Boxer » November 30, 2014, 3:06 pm

Ha, Tyranny thrives in the absence of nuance.

That's quite a kicking for the Libs
Image

User avatar
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24597
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Manbush » December 2, 2014, 8:40 am

"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens

Professor
Steve Walters
Posts: 7434
Joined: August 13, 2008, 3:39 pm
Favourite Player: Bae
Location: Canberra

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Professor » December 2, 2014, 8:56 am

:lol: :lol: no **** way

Green eyed Mick
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13410
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Favourite Player: Brett Mullins
Location: Canberra :(

Re: The Politics Thread

Post by Green eyed Mick » December 2, 2014, 9:17 am

Of all the 'woman's' issues that need attention this is as close to the bottom of the list as they come.

She is the Greens spokesperson for women. How about sending out a press release and taking the government to task on something serious like this:

http://www.9news.com.au/national/2014/1 ... d-marriage

Post Reply