The Greenhouse

https://www.canberratimes.com.au/politi ... 50mr4.html

****ing nationals. Who votes for these hillbilly hypocrites?

https://outline.com/DeJ7y4

**** Greens. Who votes for these holier than thou hypocrites?

What a party. Haha.

Chance of a second referendum are increasing..

Surely if they go down this path it should be "Do you want to go back to how things were before the 2016 vote or do you want this dumpster fire of a deal the EU has handed us because that's the best it is going to be"

I'd love to see what Nigel Farage and Boris Johnson would be campaigning on then.

ON another note,this has not aged well.



https://twitter.com/broad4mallee/status ... 8796850176

T_R wrote:

gangrenous wrote:

The Nickman wrote:

Sossman wrote: ↑December 17, 2018, 4:43 pm Turnbull and the 'wets' in the Libs did very well to get SSM done and Turnbull can be proud. He spent a lot of capital inside his own party to achieve it.

However, never forget that parts of the LNP fought tooth and nail against this and tried to sabotage the process.

In hindsight.. having Turnbull manage this is probably more effective than Labor because the press would have been WAY more hostile if ALP tried to pass it.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

The ALP had a chance to pass it when they were in Government and voted against it, Penny Wong included. Stop rewriting history, Soddsy.

They also went to the last election with it as a policy. Let’s be real here.

'Real' is that Labor had the chance to pass the legislation and bottled it because they were afraid the SDA would stop writing them cheques, and the LNP passed it.

And the last time Liberals were government before this they MADE THE RULE THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Judging the parties on where they are at in the current terms it was clear Labor policy to vote on SSM, and Libs had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

The Nickman wrote:Not you, gangy. I'd LOVE a compliment from you

You got one indirectly in the other thread. Don’t be greedy

gangrenous wrote:

T_R wrote:

gangrenous wrote:

The Nickman wrote:

Sossman wrote: ↑December 17, 2018, 4:43 pm Turnbull and the 'wets' in the Libs did very well to get SSM done and Turnbull can be proud. He spent a lot of capital inside his own party to achieve it.

However, never forget that parts of the LNP fought tooth and nail against this and tried to sabotage the process.

In hindsight.. having Turnbull manage this is probably more effective than Labor because the press would have been WAY more hostile if ALP tried to pass it.

Sent from my SM-G900I using Tapatalk

The ALP had a chance to pass it when they were in Government and voted against it, Penny Wong included. Stop rewriting history, Soddsy.

They also went to the last election with it as a policy. Let’s be real here.

'Real' is that Labor had the chance to pass the legislation and bottled it because they were afraid the SDA would stop writing them cheques, and the LNP passed it.

And the last time Liberals were government before this they MADE THE RULE THAT CAUSED THE PROBLEM IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Judging the parties on where they are at in the current terms it was clear Labor policy to vote on SSM, and Libs had to be dragged kicking and screaming to it.

The LNP created the concept of traditional marriage

I assume you are aware of the political history around the law and just being a knob. Correct me if I’m wrong.

gangrenous wrote:I assume you are aware of the political history around the law and just being a knob. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Can confirm that I am aware of the history of the law and that I am a knob, yes.

Can also confirm that the last time they were in government, Labor opposed reform to the law, with Senator Wong happy to stand up and announce that she takea the view that marriage is 'between a man and a woman', before returning home to her wife.

Bottom line is that the LNP got the job done. I pay on results, not chat.

The Nickman wrote:

Pigman wrote: ↑December 14, 2018, 6:59 pm I mean, i know it's a far fetched scenario, but when Scott Morrison loses the next election, what if he just refuses to leave and stages a political coup, because one side of politics felt it made sense economically, to give Australia a chance to avoid an ALP government?

It's a slippery slope. The populace was given a vote, they voted. The results are what they are. You live with it and make the best of it. The job of politicians is to act according to the wishes of the populace who elect them. The populace have spoken, i dont have to like the result but if you believe in democracy, you cant honestly hand on heart believe its right to just re-vote until it falls your way.

Hahaha that IS a far fetched scenario, all right, Pig!!

There's no **** WAY ScoMo loses to Shorten.

Do you honestly believe this Nickman?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

T_R wrote: ↑December 18, 2018, 5:53 am

gangrenous wrote:I assume you are aware of the political history around the law and just being a knob. Correct me if I’m wrong.

Can confirm that I am aware of the history of the law and that I am a knob, yes.

Can also confirm that the last time they were in government, Labor opposed reform to the law, with Senator Wong happy to stand up and announce that she takea the view that marriage is 'between a man and a woman', before returning home to her wife.

Bottom line is that the LNP got the job done. I pay on results, not chat.

It is genuinely infuriating how Wong has been held up as some kind of political hero over this issue. Imagine being a politician so spineless that you'd stand in front of a camera and smile whilst you explain why you're own community doesnt deserve equal rights...

No one, not Turnbull, not Abbott, not ScoMo has managed to sink to those levels. Penny Wong should have that quote put on her **** tombstone so no one ever forgets what he stands for

How is it any different to the conservative side of the Govt accepting the SSM results through gritted teeth? As a party they come to a decision and then try to sell it to the public. I'm not at all trying to defend her actions I just think both sides do it, or similar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

gergreg wrote:How is it any different to the conservative side of the Govt accepting the SSM results through gritted teeth? As a party they come to a decision and then try to sell it to the public. I'm not at all trying to defend her actions I just think both sides do it, or similar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Because Labor decided it was too hard and against their self interest to pursue it, and bottled it. The Libs got the job done.

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:How is it any different to the conservative side of the Govt accepting the SSM results through gritted teeth? As a party they come to a decision and then try to sell it to the public. I'm not at all trying to defend her actions I just think both sides do it, or similar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Because Labor decided it was too hard and against their self interest to pursue it, and bottled it. The Libs got the job done.

Well good on them. Do you think they get it done without MT steering the ship?

Edit: I don't know that either side bases their prospective policies on whether it is 'too hard'. It's all about votes and re-election.

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:How is it any different to the conservative side of the Govt accepting the SSM results through gritted teeth? As a party they come to a decision and then try to sell it to the public. I'm not at all trying to defend her actions I just think both sides do it, or similar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Because Labor decided it was too hard and against their self interest to pursue it, and bottled it. The Libs got the job done.

In different public environments 6 years apart. Apples and Oranges.

One party came voluntarily to the electorate last election with it as policy. One party had to twist itself in knots to make it happen despite itself.

I’m glad it’s happened. I’m don’t think it happened in the best way. I certainly don’t give a lot of credit to the Liberal party for making it happen. That sits more with the groups and public that forced a change.

I do give some credit to MT for getting it through his party, but ultimately that was a bed of his making imo, so not a lot.

gangrenous wrote:

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:How is it any different to the conservative side of the Govt accepting the SSM results through gritted teeth? As a party they come to a decision and then try to sell it to the public. I'm not at all trying to defend her actions I just think both sides do it, or similar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Because Labor decided it was too hard and against their self interest to pursue it, and bottled it. The Libs got the job done.

In different public environments 6 years apart. Apples and Oranges.

One party came voluntarily to the electorate last election with it as policy. One party had to twist itself in knots to make it happen despite itself.

I’m glad it’s happened. I’m don’t think it happened in the best way. I certainly don’t give a lot of credit to the Liberal party for making it happen. That sits more with the groups and public that forced a change.

I do give some credit to MT for getting it through his party, but ultimately that was a bed of his making imo, so not a lot.

Got to wonder what part his financial contribution to his own party played into the LIBs accepting the shift in ideology?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

gergreg wrote:

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:How is it any different to the conservative side of the Govt accepting the SSM results through gritted teeth? As a party they come to a decision and then try to sell it to the public. I'm not at all trying to defend her actions I just think both sides do it, or similar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Because Labor decided it was too hard and against their self interest to pursue it, and bottled it. The Libs got the job done.

Well good on them. Do you think they get it done without MT steering the ship?

Edit: I don't know that either side bases their prospective policies on whether it is 'too hard'. It's all about votes and re-election.

The 'ifs' don't matter. They got the job done.

And it's not always about re-election...in the case of Labor's abhorrent approach to SSM, it was an issue of factional control and funding through that most hideous of unions.

gangrenous wrote:

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:How is it any different to the conservative side of the Govt accepting the SSM results through gritted teeth? As a party they come to a decision and then try to sell it to the public. I'm not at all trying to defend her actions I just think both sides do it, or similar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Because Labor decided it was too hard and against their self interest to pursue it, and bottled it. The Libs got the job done.

In different public environments 6 years apart. Apples and Oranges.

One party came voluntarily to the electorate last election with it as policy. One party had to twist itself in knots to make it happen despite itself.

I’m glad it’s happened. I’m don’t think it happened in the best way. I certainly don’t give a lot of credit to the Liberal party for making it happen. That sits more with the groups and public that forced a change.

I do give some credit to MT for getting it through his party, but ultimately that was a bed of his making imo, so not a lot.

Oh, bollocks. Labor could very easily have got SSM passed. They chose not to for their own reasons.

The fact is that the Libs got it done, despite headwinds within their own party. When Labor hit internal division on the issue they froze up. Bottom line is that Turnbull found a way.

I respect your ideolgical fervor, but its clouding your judgement here.

But it is about re-election because at the time the public demand was not enough to override the factional fighting.

Do you think the Liberals push it through their factional infighting 6 years ago? I can’t believe that you do. We know that they didn’t in their prior term.

I don’t have an ideological fervour here. I’m a swing voter. I just am happy to go in for analysis beyond your in depth “they put it through”.

gangrenous wrote:But it is about re-election because at the time the public demand was not enough to override the factional fighting.

Do you think the Liberals push it through their factional infighting 6 years ago? I can’t believe that you do. We know that they didn’t in their prior term.

Prior term was more than a decade ago. You can't have social conditions unripe 6 years ago, and then start talking in terms of Howard era. You're twisting this in circles.

All of this is speculation. Labor raised the issue then fell apart on internal division. The Libs had the same issue, but got the job done.

All else is just speculation.

I am talking about their prior electoral term. Not the last time they were in government

All else is just speculation that most people who graduated year 3 would agree on.

Hang on. You expect the LIberals to 'push it through' from opposition??? You can't seriously now be speculating on what may have happened if they had happened to win the election back then? Surely that's a bridge too far here, even for your desperate attempts to take this away from the LNP.

Clearly my Year 3 Diploma didn't equip me to process your logic.

You having a bad day T_R?

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote:How is it any different to the conservative side of the Govt accepting the SSM results through gritted teeth? As a party they come to a decision and then try to sell it to the public. I'm not at all trying to defend her actions I just think both sides do it, or similar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Because Labor decided it was too hard and against their self interest to pursue it, and bottled it. The Libs got the job done.

Well good on them. Do you think they get it done without MT steering the ship?

Edit: I don't know that either side bases their prospective policies on whether it is 'too hard'. It's all about votes and re-election.

The 'ifs' don't matter. They got the job done.

And it's not always about re-election...in the case of Labor's abhorrent approach to SSM, it was an issue of factional control and funding through that most hideous of unions.

Again good for them. It matters nought to me at the end of the day, and the majority of the population - in the sense that it hasn't changed the lives of the majority of Australians. I guess if that is your only accomplishment in 6 years of govt you've got to hang onto it for dear life.

But I guess the next govt will be equally as incompetent as the current one though.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

gergreg wrote: ↑December 18, 2018, 8:16 amAgain good for them. It matters nought to me at the end of the day, and the majority of the population - in the sense that it hasn't changed the lives of the majority of Australians.

Wow.

Well, it matters to me that SSM was passed.

gangrenous wrote: ↑December 18, 2018, 8:14 am You having a bad day T_R?

Not yet, but I'm about to meet with local Council, so I'm absolutely confident I'll get there.

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote: ↑December 18, 2018, 8:16 amAgain good for them. It matters nought to me at the end of the day, and the majority of the population - in the sense that it hasn't changed the lives of the majority of Australians.

Wow.

Well, it matters to me that SSM was passed.

I think its great that everybody has the opportunity to marry the person they love but it doesn't change anything in my life. How has it directly improved or changed your life?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

gergreg wrote: ↑December 18, 2018, 8:49 am

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote: ↑December 18, 2018, 8:16 amAgain good for them. It matters nought to me at the end of the day, and the majority of the population - in the sense that it hasn't changed the lives of the majority of Australians.

Wow.

Well, it matters to me that SSM was passed.

I think its great that everybody has the opportunity to marry the person they love but it doesn't change anything in my life. How has it directly improved or changed your life?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

No, but it's made a lot of people happy and I'm not quite so self centred as to be unable to take pleasure from that.

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote: ↑December 18, 2018, 8:49 am

T_R wrote:

gergreg wrote: ↑December 18, 2018, 8:16 amAgain good for them. It matters nought to me at the end of the day, and the majority of the population - in the sense that it hasn't changed the lives of the majority of Australians.

Wow.

Well, it matters to me that SSM was passed.

I think its great that everybody has the opportunity to marry the person they love but it doesn't change anything in my life. How has it directly improved or changed your life?

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

No, but it's made a lot of people happy and I'm not quite so self centred as to be unable to take pleasure from that.

So we agree. Happy for the what, 5 - 10 percent of the population that it directly affects but able to concede it doesn't directly affect me.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

gergreg wrote: ↑December 18, 2018, 7:06 am How is it any different to the conservative side of the Govt accepting the SSM results through gritted teeth? As a party they come to a decision and then try to sell it to the public. I'm not at all trying to defend her actions I just think both sides do it, or similar.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

Some of the conservatives didnt want it, some compaigned against it, some voted against it, others didnt vote at all... but ultimately they put it to the public and got it done.

What they didnt do was say "it's all too hard" and then stick a gay women in front of the cameras to explain why she's perfectly comfortable with inequality for her community, and then a few years later when public sentiment had swung further, decide to try and position themselves on the moral high horse, and try and make that same women who told the country not so long ago why SSM wasn't good for australia, a champion of the cause.

Both sides of politics are duplicitous, both sides play to public sentiment. Both sides even do things they probably don't really want to do or believe in for political reasons... the level of this is galling, even by political standards.
To first stick Penny Wong up front to explain away why SSM was all too hard and why it's perfectly fine that the LGBTI+ community didnt have equal rights, and then to turn around and try and pretend like she's championed this cause?
Please. Don't piss in my pocket and tell me it's raining. Here's a fact the left wont much like, Malcolm Turnbull did more for championing and achieving SSM than Penny Wong or ANYONE in the ALP.

You'll get no arguments from me, but I'll hold to my opinion that both sides are just as bad as each other - for example Sen Cormann in the most recent leadership contest.

They just lurch from one ridiculous incident to the next, or so it seems.

Sent from my SM-G570F using Tapatalk

[

papabear wrote: ↑December 17, 2018, 8:29 am

Manbush wrote: ↑December 16, 2018, 5:23 am Yeah it’s a weird one and not quite as easy as a simple case of leave won so have to honor it, the leave side aren’t happy with the deal so should they be able to vote again now that they actually know what the deal will be rather than just the lies they were originally told.

The SSM we knew exactly what we’d be getting, the republic one we voted for a specific type and even if we voted simply yes or no for a republic Australia would have chosen the type, with Brexit the ball was in the EUs court.

Did we know exactly what we were getting even now spin off legislation is being talked about and that is the nature of these things.

IMO I cant remember the last time you advocated your above position on something where you agreed with the original vote. It just comes across as dishonest to me, but you argue what you are going to argue.

Yes we knew what we were getting, marriage equality, this “spin off” was coming with or without marriage equality as the religious privilege to discriminate was already on the nose.

I didn’t argue for one stance or another, just pointed out it’s not as simple as some want to make it and the flaws in the comparison to SSM and republic debate.

There are flaws to that comparison and every comparison, but the democratic principle remains the same.

gangrenous wrote: ↑December 18, 2018, 7:43 am But it is about re-election because at the time the public demand was not enough to override the factional fighting.

Do you think the Liberals push it through their factional infighting 6 years ago? I can’t believe that you do. We know that they didn’t in their prior term.

I don’t have an ideological fervour here. I’m a swing voter. I just am happy to go in for analysis beyond your in depth “they put it through”.

to be honest you don't sound like a swing voter in this.

The coalition did put it through, despite great resistance within their own party and from very conservative voters in australia.

Labor facing less resistance within their own party did not. Of course the public sentiment wasn't as strong but there was more then enough there NZ got there vote through before labor lost government. All australia had to do was be equal to NZ. Not asking them to be norway or someone more progressive, just NZ.

You get credit for what you achieve not for the context people put on it to try and downgrade it.

Equally, if Labor fixed up the tax system, simplified it so there was one effective rate, do you think the coalition should get credit for this because they have in the past been more reasonable with their taxes and less punitive as the coalition? That would be ridiculous.

You give credit where it is due and the coalition get to dance all over the bringing in of SSM. Labor do not.

But they will get there chance and we can see what they will do?

Reform taxes to make them more fairer? Nup, unlikely, more likely to just put in some new ones of which half of them will probably be **** and not raise any money.
Legalise marijuana? Bill Shortens balls big enough for that? Nope