The Politics Thread 2017

Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44111
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by The Rickman » December 8, 2017, 10:38 am

It's genuinely amazing that the nay-sayers can't just simply acknowledge that Turnbull did exactly what he promised at the last election. Might have taken a bit longer than you would've liked, but he got it done.

You can't always say that about politicians, but he got it done. Learn to not be so bloody black and white.... "derrrr, LNP is bad, Labor is good"
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
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 10:40 am

gangrenous wrote: I’m glad it’s done. I hope that the survey has gone someway towards removing LNP consevative powers beyond this one issue. But I can’t see it to be honest.
By which you mean that you hope the make up of the ruling party is changed to more suit your own personal beliefs?

Well, you can vote. And other people who feel differently can vote. If more people who feel like you vote, then you will eventually get a government that looks like the one you like. In the meantime, you need to accept that more Australians felt differently, and we have a more conservative government in power.
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
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23319
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » December 8, 2017, 10:41 am

gergreg wrote:
gangrenous wrote:Well then if there’s no way to prove it I guess there’s not much point in keeping these grey squishy things in our heads that let us consider what the outcomes in an alternate universe may have been.
I've stated before in this very thread that I didn't understand why there was so much lead up/lobbying time between announcing and conducting the survey. Aside from that how could it have been handled better?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
The way I understand it the delays were mainly due to preparedness of the AEC to conduct the process. All the posturing by the pollies prior was just the usual garbage you expect from any issue that gets heavy media coverage.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 8, 2017, 10:41 am

The Nickman wrote:It's genuinely amazing that the nay-sayers can't just simply acknowledge that Turnbull did exactly what he promised at the last election. Might have taken a bit longer than you would've liked, but he got it done.

You can't always say that about politicians, but he got it done. Learn to not be so bloody black and white.... "derrrr, LNP is bad, Labor is good"
Is that what we should say if his promise was to publicly execute Nickman and he did it?

Personally I like there to be an action I support not just a promise fulfilled.
Last edited by gangrenous on December 8, 2017, 10:45 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 8, 2017, 10:44 am

T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote: I’m glad it’s done. I hope that the survey has gone someway towards removing LNP consevative powers beyond this one issue. But I can’t see it to be honest.
By which you mean that you hope the make up of the ruling party is changed to more suit your own personal beliefs?

Well, you can vote. And other people who feel differently can vote. If more people who feel like you vote, then you will eventually get a government that looks like the one you like. In the meantime, you need to accept that more Australians felt differently, and we have a more conservative government in power.
I mean more aligned to the general Australian population. Also more aligned to getting **** done instead of having polar opposite opinions on important topics.

You think the conservative tail wagging the dog is what people voted for? Explains the high opinion polling I guess...

Even if it were just me, sorry for expressing my opinion/wishes in the politics thread Image

gergreg
Steve Walters
Posts: 7249
Joined: June 24, 2008, 4:22 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gergreg » December 8, 2017, 10:49 am

gangrenous wrote:
T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote: I’m glad it’s done. I hope that the survey has gone someway towards removing LNP consevative powers beyond this one issue. But I can’t see it to be honest.
By which you mean that you hope the make up of the ruling party is changed to more suit your own personal beliefs?

Well, you can vote. And other people who feel differently can vote. If more people who feel like you vote, then you will eventually get a government that looks like the one you like. In the meantime, you need to accept that more Australians felt differently, and we have a more conservative government in power.
I mean more aligned to the general Australian population.

You think the conservative tail wagging the dog is what people voted for. Explains the high opinion polling I guess...

Even if it were just me, sorry for expressing my opinion/wishes in the politics thread Image
Don't worry about T_R. When political commentators talk about 'the big end of town' they are referring to T_R's house.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk
Shoving it in your face since 2017

User avatar
Dibbers
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 988
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers » December 8, 2017, 11:05 am

I don't buy the whole "Labour did nothing for 6 years while they were in power" as an argument. Mainly because i don't think if this had the media coverage it has had recently, the Libs probably wouldn't have done anything either. And where do you draw the line? Why didn't howard do it? Or Keating and Hawke? Or Menzies???

And its not being "Black and White". Its having an opinion if it really was an act of conscience for Turnbull to get this done, or whether it was a way to save face with the far right as well as the general population... and sorry, but his track record doesn't exactly provide me with a great deal of confidence that it had anything to do with the former. This "Black and White" take works both ways too. While I think they could have managed it better, Labor did manage to prevent Australia from experiencing a recession... but a lot of Liberals don't give them credit for it.. (not saying anyone specifically, but thats the general consensus of Liberal supporters that i've heard...)
I found a moon rock in my nose....

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 11:05 am

gangrenous wrote:
T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote: I’m glad it’s done. I hope that the survey has gone someway towards removing LNP consevative powers beyond this one issue. But I can’t see it to be honest.
By which you mean that you hope the make up of the ruling party is changed to more suit your own personal beliefs?

Well, you can vote. And other people who feel differently can vote. If more people who feel like you vote, then you will eventually get a government that looks like the one you like. In the meantime, you need to accept that more Australians felt differently, and we have a more conservative government in power.
I mean more aligned to the general Australian population. Also more aligned to getting **** done instead of having polar opposite opinions on important topics.

You think the conservative tail wagging the dog is what people voted for? Explains the high opinion polling I guess...

Even if it were just me, sorry for expressing my opinion/wishes in the politics thread Image
I would say that the parliament is aligned with the wishes of the Australian people. That's why we vote - to align our political representatives in a way that meets our preferences. More people voted for a conservative parliament than voted for a progressive parliament, so they get to sit on the right hand side of the Speaker and have a reasonable expectation of being in a position to pass legislation. In some areas, people chose to vote for more conservative representation that you would have liked, which is now reflected in the make up of the governing parties. That's called democracy. It's a beautiful thing, gangrenous.

You are more than welcome to express your opinion here and elsewhere, though.
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
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 11:06 am

gergreg wrote: When political commentators talk about 'the big end of town' they are referring to T_R's house.

My roof leaks.
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
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 8, 2017, 11:09 am

T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
T_R wrote:
gangrenous wrote: I’m glad it’s done. I hope that the survey has gone someway towards removing LNP consevative powers beyond this one issue. But I can’t see it to be honest.
By which you mean that you hope the make up of the ruling party is changed to more suit your own personal beliefs?

Well, you can vote. And other people who feel differently can vote. If more people who feel like you vote, then you will eventually get a government that looks like the one you like. In the meantime, you need to accept that more Australians felt differently, and we have a more conservative government in power.
I mean more aligned to the general Australian population. Also more aligned to getting **** done instead of having polar opposite opinions on important topics.

You think the conservative tail wagging the dog is what people voted for? Explains the high opinion polling I guess...

Even if it were just me, sorry for expressing my opinion/wishes in the politics thread Image
I would say that the parliament is aligned with the wishes of the Australian people. That's why we vote - to align our political representatives in a way that meets our preferences. More people voted for a conservative parliament than voted for a progressive parliament, so they get to sit on the right hand side of the Speaker and have a reasonable expectation of being in a position to pass legislation. In some areas, people chose to vote for more conservative representation that you would have liked, which is now reflected in the make up of the governing parties. That's called democracy. It's a beautiful thing, gangrenous.

You are more than welcome to express your opinion here and elsewhere, though.
I don’t believe that’s true and I suspect we’ll see the result of that in the beautiful thing that is the next election.

User avatar
Northern Raider
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23319
Joined: June 19, 2007, 8:17 am
Favourite Player: Dean Lance
Location: Greener pastures

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Northern Raider » December 8, 2017, 11:10 am

T_R wrote:
gergreg wrote: When political commentators talk about 'the big end of town' they are referring to T_R's house.

My roof leaks.
Thats your rooftop pool.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
* The author assumes no responsibility for the topicality, correctness, completeness or quality of information provided.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 11:10 am

Dibbers wrote:I don't buy the whole "Labour did nothing for 6 years while they were in power" as an argument. Mainly because i don't think if this had the media coverage it has had recently, the Libs probably wouldn't have done anything either.
Your memory is failing you. This was a huge issue in the winter of 2010 and had a great deal of press coverage. What it failed to have was sufficient conviction in the ruling party to have it passed.
Dibbers wrote:where do you draw the line? Why didn't howard do it?


Whatever else we may or may not see eye to eye on, I think we can all safely agree that it was very unlikely that Howard was going to do it. :lol:
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
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 8, 2017, 11:11 am

Dibbers wrote:I don't buy the whole "Labour did nothing for 6 years while they were in power" as an argument. Mainly because i don't think if this had the media coverage it has had recently, the Libs probably wouldn't have done anything either. And where do you draw the line? Why didn't howard do it? Or Keating and Hawke? Or Menzies???

And its not being "Black and White". Its having an opinion if it really was an act of conscience for Turnbull to get this done, or whether it was a way to save face with the far right as well as the general population... and sorry, but his track record doesn't exactly provide me with a great deal of confidence that it had anything to do with the former. This "Black and White" take works both ways too. While I think they could have managed it better, Labor did manage to prevent Australia from experiencing a recession... but a lot of Liberals don't give them credit for it.. (not saying anyone specifically, but thats the general consensus of Liberal supporters that i've heard...)
Labor put it to a vote and more than half their party voted for it didn’t they? So if half the Libs had been able to do the same...
Last edited by gangrenous on December 8, 2017, 11:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 11:11 am

gangrenous wrote:
I don’t believe that’s true and I suspect we’ll see the result of that in the beautiful thing that is the next election.
Well, if more people have come to agree with your take on politics, that is most definitely the case. In the meantime, the parliament reflects the preferences of those who voted in the last election. A thing of beauty, yes.
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
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 11:16 am

gangrenous wrote:
Dibbers wrote:I don't buy the whole "Labour did nothing for 6 years while they were in power" as an argument. Mainly because i don't think if this had the media coverage it has had recently, the Libs probably wouldn't have done anything either. And where do you draw the line? Why didn't howard do it? Or Keating and Hawke? Or Menzies???

And its not being "Black and White". Its having an opinion if it really was an act of conscience for Turnbull to get this done, or whether it was a way to save face with the far right as well as the general population... and sorry, but his track record doesn't exactly provide me with a great deal of confidence that it had anything to do with the former. This "Black and White" take works both ways too. While I think they could have managed it better, Labor did manage to prevent Australia from experiencing a recession... but a lot of Liberals don't give them credit for it.. (not saying anyone specifically, but thats the general consensus of Liberal supporters that i've heard...)
Labor put it to a vote and more than half their party voted for it didn’t they? So if half the Libs had been able to do the same...
I think you'll find it's up to the government of the day to pass legislation, gangrenous. That's pretty much how it works.

But for the record, I don't believe it was ever voted on. Labor realised they didn't have the numbers and pulled the plug, if I recall correctly. And then we got to watch them parade around on TV telling us that they believed in a 'traditional definition' of marriage....remember? When they were in power? And could pass legislation? And chose not to? Then, that's when I mean.


EDIT - I do beg your pardon, it WAS indeed voted on, in 2012, as a private members bill put forward by a Labor backbencher. Although many Labor Members voted against it, to his credit one Bill Shorten did indeed vote 'Yes'. Unfortunately, not many of his colleagues agreed with his position and it did not succeed.
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
Botman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 25934
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm
Favourite Player: Nick Cotric

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Botman » December 8, 2017, 11:19 am

Dibbers wrote:I don't buy the whole "Labour did nothing for 6 years while they were in power" as an argument. Mainly because i don't think if this had the media coverage it has had recently, the Libs probably wouldn't have done anything either. And where do you draw the line? Why didn't howard do it? Or Keating and Hawke? Or Menzies???

...)
It had enough coverage and was enough of a discussion for the ALP to feel the need to put their well known lesbian senator on front street to explain to the Australian people that marriage was a scared institution between man and women due to cultural, historical and religious views, and that those views must be respected.

So whilst you’re welcome to buy whatever you want, I’m not buying your excuse on this and frankly you shouldn’t be selling it
CREATE PROCEDURE BotMan_Post AS
SELECT * FROM Previous_Post
EXEC quote_post
WHERE UserName = 'Aknalkfgnaa' OR 'Yeah Raiders' OR 'Billy B'
EXEC RAND(good_grief; cheak_notes; uh82cit;)

GO;

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 8, 2017, 11:21 am

Image

If you’ll scroll down you’ll see Penny Wong also voted in favour despite towing the party line in public as with limitless politicians before her.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 11:25 am

Please see my edit above :)
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
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 11:27 am

Is your argument in regards Wong that she is wishy-washy, an unprincipled opportunist or simply lacks backbone?
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
Dibbers
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 988
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers » December 8, 2017, 11:29 am

T_R wrote:Is your argument in regards Wong that she is wishy-washy, an unprincipled opportunist or simply lacks backbone?
Anyone giving any credit to turnbull for anything sbouldnt comment on someone not having a backbone

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
I found a moon rock in my nose....

User avatar
The Rickman
Mal Meninga
Posts: 44111
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Favourite Player: Hodgo
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by The Rickman » December 8, 2017, 11:31 am

Dibbers wrote:
T_R wrote:Is your argument in regards Wong that she is wishy-washy, an unprincipled opportunist or simply lacks backbone?
Anyone giving any credit to turnbull for anything sbouldnt (sic) comment on someone not having a backbone

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
"Any credit to him for anything"? That just sounds like straight out, black-and-white political horse ****.

I'll give him credit for passing SSM in EXACTLY the way he said he would at the last election. He deserves credit for that. It's a shame you're so blinkered in your political opinion that you can't acknowledge that.
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
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 8, 2017, 11:34 am

T_R wrote:Please see my edit above :)
So is there still no difference between Labor attempting to pass this with 5 years less social progress and a completely opposed opposition compared to one that fully supported and campaigned in favour?

Your arguments on this are nonsensical T_R

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 8, 2017, 11:35 am

T_R wrote:Is your argument in regards Wong that she is wishy-washy, an unprincipled opportunist or simply lacks backbone?
My argument is she’s a politician

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 11:35 am

Dibbers wrote:
T_R wrote:Is your argument in regards Wong that she is wishy-washy, an unprincipled opportunist or simply lacks backbone?
Anyone giving any credit to turnbull for anything sbouldnt comment on someone not having a backbone
I credit Turnbull with getting legislation passed as he promised. I note that the Labor party in government failed to do so.

Those are both simple statements of fact.
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
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 11:39 am

gangrenous wrote:
T_R wrote:Please see my edit above :)
So is there still no difference between Labor attempting to pass this with 5 years less social progress and a completely opposed opposition compared to one that fully supported and campaigned in favour?

Your arguments on this are nonsensical T_R
You don't seem to understand. Labor didn't try to get the legislation through - it was a private member's bill. Labor didn't support the legislation. Steven Jones was acting AGAINST the wishes of his party, and the parliamentary executive.

Perhaps if you understood how parliament worked, my argument would appear less nonsensical?

If anything, it proves my point. The Labor party was divided, and completely lacked the leadership to get the legislation passed. In 2017, confronted with an equally divided party, Turnbull managed to get SSM into law.
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
Dibbers
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 988
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers » December 8, 2017, 11:45 am

The Nickman wrote:
Dibbers wrote:
T_R wrote:Is your argument in regards Wong that she is wishy-washy, an unprincipled opportunist or simply lacks backbone?
Anyone giving any credit to turnbull for anything sbouldnt (sic) comment on someone not having a backbone

Sent from my SM-G950F using Tapatalk
"Any credit to him for anything"? That just sounds like straight out, black-and-white political horse ****.

I'll give him credit for passing SSM in EXACTLY the way he said he would at the last election. He deserves credit for that. It's a shame you're so blinkered in your political opinion that you can't acknowledge that.
He delivered it in the way he said he would... I don't agree with the method of the delivery. I think it sets a bad precedent for all social issues that arise in the future.
Will he hold a postal survey on any proposed changes to religious freedoms? Unlikely. What makes religious freedoms any different?

Whether you agree that it occurred or not (or to what degree it occurred) is irrelevant. It opened the doors for open discrimination from both our elected officials and the general public. It was a bad policy and should have been dealt with in parliament. If certain members voted against it and their electorate was in favour, then they should have worn the consequences of their views in the next election. The problem was that they knew it would be political suicide to do this so past the buck on it.

So no, I won't give the man credit for essentially giving the green light on hate speech and bigotry. I won't give him credit for enabling the Christian Lobby Groups to twist the issue and make it about Children, Safe Schools, Marring Bridges and all the other Horse **** that was bandied about during the campaign.

I'm not blinkered. I have an opinion on this matter. I don't use this one issue to colour my judgement of a party in its entirety. But there are other important issues to me that also paint the current Liberal govt in a poor light. Will Labor be any better? I don't know. But i don't agree with the direction the Liberals are taking and my vote come the next election will reflect that.

Delivering on a political promise isn't something to give credit for if the promise was a poor one. In my opinion, a plebescite was a poor one, the community that it directly impacted thought it was a poor option. But they continued down that path for reasons that I believe were solely based around political survival, protecting him from both the powerbrokers within his own party as well as the Australian voters as a whole.
I found a moon rock in my nose....

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 8, 2017, 11:45 am

Trying to divert from the key differences T_R:
Time
Supportive opposition

They’re big ones. Can you even admit it?

Where did the private members bill come from? I don’t suppose it was a political play to try and pass the bill with internal division? Much like say a plebiscite that you’re backslapping old Turnbull for? I don’t actually know, but I’m assuming it didn’t come from the liberals.

Labor were divided but Liberals were universally opposed.

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 11:50 am

No, it wasn't a political play to pass the bill with internal division. It was a doomed protest by a principled Member, and completely opposed by the parliamentary executive. This is what you don't seem to understand... it was not a Labor vote at all.
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
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 11:57 am

Dibbers wrote: Delivering on a political promise isn't something to give credit for if the promise was a poor one. In my opinion, a plebescite was a poor one, the community that it directly impacted thought it was a poor option. But they continued down that path for reasons that I believe were solely based around political survival, protecting him from both the powerbrokers within his own party as well as the Australian voters as a whole.

...and resulted in gay Australians sharing equal rights with the rest of the population, something that no previous parliament has managed to do.

Seems to me to be something to celebrate, not bellyache about. But each to their own.
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
Manbush
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24636
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm
Favourite Player: Luke Turner

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Manbush » December 8, 2017, 11:57 am

Well said Dibbers, the whole thing was a farce to try and protect his job. Why something that only affects a small amount of the population required a survey and things that affect everyone don’t is ludicrous.
"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

User avatar
gangrenous
Laurie Daley
Posts: 10073
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by gangrenous » December 8, 2017, 11:58 am

Avoiding avoiding avoiding

Anyway I’m done with this thread and T_R’s Bull for today.

Malcolm Turnbull is the hero of gay marriage and definitely never voted against it previously there in black and white. Penny Wong is however the great big villain who actually voted in favour. As well as Shorten. If Labor has opposed this as Liberals did during the Labor term would Turnbull have got this through? But of course there is no difference between now and 2012 at all. Go Turnbull!

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 12:04 pm

gangrenous wrote:Avoiding avoiding avoiding

Anyway I’m done with this thread and T_R’s Bull for today.

Malcolm Turnbull is the hero of gay marriage and definitely never voted against it previously there in black and white. Penny Wong is however the great big villain who actually voted in favour. As well as Shorten. If Labor has opposed this as Liberals did during the Labor term would Turnbull have got this through? But of course there is no difference between now and 2012 at all. Go Turnbull!
I assume that you're trying to make that out to be my opinion?

I've already said that I believe Shorten acted to his credit in 2012. It was a principled stand.

Penny Wong is at very least a hypocrite here. She could ALSO have taken a principled stand, but chose instead to speak out against the legislation. She then voted in opposition to her own publicy expressed views on the subject. Yeah, I have an issue with that.

I guess you're trying to be satirical about Turnbull's previous voting? I disagree with the decision that he and the other Liberal Members made. Not sure what point you're trying to make there.

I believe that if Labor had opposed the legislation in 2017, it would have failed. I've never said anything to the contrary. I also believe that if Labor was fully behind this in 2012, it would have passed then. But they weren't, and it didn't.

It seems that you've struggled to mount an argument against my actual words, so have resorted to making things up.
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
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 12:09 pm

Manbush wrote:Well said Dibbers, the whole thing was a farce to try and protect his job. Why something that only affects a small amount of the population required a survey and things that affect everyone don’t is ludicrous.
Yes, but when the Labor leadership faced the same situation in 2010, they bottled it and pulled the vote...to protect their jobs. When a member of their party had the balls to go his own way with legislation, they STILL failed to get up, with the parliamentary executive opposing it...to protect their jobs.

So, Labor protected their jobs and gay people continued to be discriminated against. Turnbull protected his job, and we finally have equal rights.

I know which of the two I'd support.
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
Dibbers
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 988
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm
Favourite Player: Brad Clyde

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by Dibbers » December 8, 2017, 12:10 pm

T_R wrote:
Dibbers wrote: Delivering on a political promise isn't something to give credit for if the promise was a poor one. In my opinion, a plebescite was a poor one, the community that it directly impacted thought it was a poor option. But they continued down that path for reasons that I believe were solely based around political survival, protecting him from both the powerbrokers within his own party as well as the Australian voters as a whole.

...and resulted in gay Australians sharing equal rights with the rest of the population, something that no previous parliament has managed to do.

Seems to me to be something to celebrate, not bellyache about. But each to their own.
You can twist my words however you want. I don't agree with the process. The outcome I agreed with, but i also believe that the people we elect to make decisions on changes to legislation, particularly legislation that is discriminatory, should be able to do so without conducting a glorified opinion poll at the tax payers expense. It wouldn't matter if 80% of the population wanted no changes, they should still have passed the change through because it was the right thing to do.

Yes a different labor party didn't get this done 6 years ago, but a different Liberal party put that discriminatory legislation through in the first place, so its minus 1 each in my book if we're going to look at it that way.

While i'm over the moon that this has finally gotten through, i will not give the man credit when, if he was so much in support of it, could've told his political overlords to shove it and put this to a conscience vote. Oh but wait, that would mean he'd get kicked out of the top job... but lets sting Penny Wong up for towing the party line of the time and not standing up for her convictions... a tad hypocritical no??? For the record, they both have lost my respect over their respective decisions to not stand up to their party on the issue.
I found a moon rock in my nose....

User avatar
T_R
Don Furner
Posts: 15829
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa

Re: The Politics Thread 2017

Post by T_R » December 8, 2017, 12:18 pm

Dibbers wrote: It wouldn't matter if 80% of the population wanted no changes, they should still have passed the change through because it was the right thing to do.
Thanks for your input, Kim Jong Un.
Dibbers wrote:Yes a different labor party didn't get this done 6 years ago, but a different Liberal party put that discriminatory legislation through in the first place, so its minus 1 each in my book if we're going to look at it that way.
It was the same Labor party, champ.

And what discriminatory legislation did the Libs put through??? You've lost me.
Dibbers wrote:While i'm over the moon that this has finally gotten through, i will not give the man credit when, if he was so much in support of it, could've told his political overlords to shove it and put this to a conscience vote. Oh but wait, that would mean he'd get kicked out of the top job... but lets sting Penny Wong up for towing the party line of the time and not standing up for her convictions... a tad hypocritical no??? For the record, they both have lost my respect over their respective decisions to not stand up to their party on the issue.
I think they've both acted poorly. I would very much have liked Turnbull to have stood up and demanded the changes, too. I think he's been a great disappointment as Prime Minister.

But I guess I'm a practical chap at heart. Turnbull did what Wong and the Labor party could not. We have equal rights in relation to marriage in Australia as a result of the process that he went through. Was it my preferred way? Absolutely not. Can I respect him for achieving what he promised - and for achieving what the allegedly 'progressive' side of politics completely failed to manage? Yes, I can.
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.

Post Reply