But we are a super Nanny State! 

Nothing can be more pathetic than that. Israel is a Jewish State and really sorry but Oz will never beat them in terms of smarts and innovation. They are streets ahead. 

Too much I say.

It's very much like Trump, there are so many "alternative" facts in his posts that you get too weary to correct them all.

And of course that proves my point.

Here are some facts.

I have been nothing else but very polite to all of you, even when you disagree. That is because it is not my intention or purpose to convince anyone.

I do however have a right to express my mind, like everyone else and all of you. But since my views are 180 to yours and several others, you call them alternative facts. There are no alternative facts and that is another fact.

There are just 2 sides of the argument and your downfall and his is your unwillingness to engage in a proper debate. You keep trying to rationalize it but the fact is, my views are extremely legitimate and valid. They just can't be quashed. these are the views of probably several million people around Australia - people who are beaten into silent submission because they can't be bothered to deal with your vitriolic hyperbole. Nothing alternative about it. You are in fact alternative.

I shall not be counting my chickens, but it is very likely that SSM will lose in the postal ballot. Think about all the millions of devout religious people. But not only that, the fence sitters will vote against it because they are going to go against the mainstream media and the vitriolic activists who always seem to put themsleves on a pedestal telling people how they should think in order to not be a bigot! 

You are welcome to express your opinion/point of view or as you say "express your mind" but it's just that an opinion and opinions can be wrong. However facts differ from opinion in that they can be verified (from the Latin verus meaning true or real). Lots of "facts" you post can be clearly shown to be false and has been done over and over again.

Fuck even just now you claimed that Munrub only posted one source when that article links off to 75 published academic papers that support his argument (and 4 that suggest there is some disadvantage).

Yes, that is right. Only one source is valid because that organisation was the only honest and transparent one in terms of how it collated data. the others didn't even disclose the data set or questions and seemed very lacking and were mainly from so called progressive media. They were not circumspect as the law society seemed to portray in a far superior manner. I for one would not classify media organisations such as CNN, Guadian or Huffington as anything close to objective and data is very easily manipulated.

Opinions can't be wrong. You can't turn around to millions of people who have beliefs in the sanctimony of marriage as being between a man and a woman as being wrong or invalid because that is just ludicrous. They are not wrong. It's  a philosophy you don't like or agree with perhaps, but you can't be saying that you are right and they wrong. That is just audacious. 

But since you bought up facts. It is a fact that most religions believe in the sanctimony of marriage as defined in religious books and teachings. How can that be wrong?

But there are of course many ways to skin a cat whereby gay couples are able unify officially as a couple andenjoy all the social and political rights of other married couples. 

Quoted for posterity. 

I didn't and this is why it's a waste of time "engaging" with you. 

And what does it matter either way?

And I said I shall not be counting my chickens. 

It's your prerogative whether you engage with me or not.

but look at all the posts. how many times was I ridiculed, told that I am wrong and that I spout alternative facts like Trump? In other words, I must be another trump looney or religious nut.

Even you said:

It's very much like Trump, there are so many "alternative" facts in his posts that you get too weary to correct them all.

One last time, you interweave things that are verifiably false in with opinions. People are allowed to say you're wrong because you're verifiably wrong.


But I won't be surprised if it isn't for some...

How am I verifiably wrong?

The only thing that is verifiable is that I am out of step with the elite mainstream media. It doesn't mean I or people with my particular stances on SSM are wrong.

What this is, is an unprecedented social experiment which will end up being a bit of a slippery slope for society. And it will be very problematic. 

Now, if people can say I am wrong (which they are), I have a right to say they are wrong (which I do). You side of the argument does not have a mortgage on being correct. In fact, you aren't correct at all. 

The one credible link is a digest of 75 credible links (79 if you include the ones that to varying degrees support your argument).
You are verifiably wrong.

The study was funded by the Witherspoon institue and the Bradley Foundation. Both are conservative organisations. There's no evidence of Obama funding any of it that I can find but if you have a source for that go for it.
http://www.salon.com/2013/03/11/conservative_group_tries_to_sway_scotus_on_gay_marriage_with_flawed_study_partner/

Science direct is not a "think tank" of any sort it's a platform that publishes peer-reviewed scholarly literature run by Elsevier. No one is questioning it.

Can't be bothered correcting anything else as I have better things to do. There's factual errors in nearly every post (and for sure in the ones that go over a paragraph).

I'm sure you'll argue some garbage but I've proved my point.

How can you say that! How can you say there are factual errors in my every post?

name them! What are these factual errors?

I am wrong about what exactly? name it!

There is no evidence to suggest I am wrong. None at all. first of all, the full ramifications are yet to be realised.

http://riseupaustraliaparty.com/our-policies/same-sex-marriage/

Any way, how bout Barnaby and all this S44 bizzo?

Be very interesting to see if they ever knuckled out a full audit to see who else might get trapped.

-PB

At this stage, I can only come to 2 possible conclusions either:

1. You're a troll
2. You have issues with comprehension

Here we go again.

Attacking the messenger with vitriolic abuse, something I have never done to anyone as yet. 

It's very typical of the Hard Left SSM Activists. Just yesterday, parents at a school conducted a demonstration against Safe Schools and the sexualization of children, until they were disrupted and heckled by a bunch of Hard Left SSM activists. It was pathetic! It's like the side isn't entitled to speak out or present the alternative viewpoint. 

And that is why people are scared to speak their minds. It is therefore possible that there will be a backlash in the postal vote. So keep going! 

At the end of the day, the rules are the rules. 

He should resign because he isn't entitled to be in Parliament. Fair is fair.

But what that means for the Turnbull Government would be interesting. We might have a dissolved Parliament and early elections. Another Governor General dismissal like Gough Whitlam in the 70s. 

And meanwhile, Australia becomes the laughing stock of all of Europe, Latin American and African tin pot States. Australia = tin pot. 

In regards to Joyce's situation, and those of other MPs and Senators. Is it a matter of refining our constitution?? Or should the question by what sort of checks is parliament doing before allowing members to sit??

Imagine if these MPs / Senators had "bad" intentions by hiding their citizenship (or that this citizenship was with "enemy" states) .... how long had the Green senators sat for?? Joyce is Deputy PM, imagine if his background was Russian! Would the government been so nonchalant with their background checks??

I personally don't see how he can stay on ... the Constitution is pretty black and white, there is no grey and that is what Joyce is trying to appeal too.

Can't change the constitution without a referendum, and they generally fail.

I think it's up to the individual and the parties to really do their homework before signing the dotted line and the rules are rules and so Barnaby should be gone, along with any others.

The fact that two Greens senators resigned with dignity shows volumes about others that are trying to weasel their way out of it. 

What would be hilarious is if there is a by-election for his seat and that he couldn't sit for it and the LNP lost their slim majority in the House lol.

-PB

With regard to the constitution - it should be amended. A huge proportion of the Australian Population has dual citizenship. Many of those are from friendly countries and they shouldn't be excluded from the political offices of Australia.

However, there should be background checks done on all Parliamentarians. So if your citizenship is from an unfriendly country like Russia, Iran, North Korea etc, then they should be stopped for fear of compromising the Australian State with ill intent. 

It is a little bit of 1 I feel.

Look at their comments on their post about Joyce: "And meanwhile, Australia becomes the laughing stock of all of Europe, Latin American and African tin pot States. Australia = tin pot." - this is their bait, they are trying to bait conversation. The proceeding comments are quite sensible and logical, then they throw this line in at the end just to bait others and give them something to troll.

This is the same for their posts about SSM. They'll ignore posts or parts thereof that they don't want to argue (although disagree with), and focus on some small aspect of a post to argue that really take it away from the subject (or at least the topics that they know disprove their argument). Typical troll behaviour.

Or the other assumption is that they have a obsessive characteristic ... that is they can not accept they are "wrong", and will argue anything and everything to simply be "right" about something, or take it as a "victory" if you stop arguing with them. My mum does this to an extent in real life (she'll come back to you a day or two after a fairly meaningless conversation to try and prove she was "right" ... obviously eaten away at her for that time when you have put aside within a second of the conversation ending).

Either way makes for some entertainment :)

The only problem with that is the Constitution would have to be continually amended depending on who are "enemies" are ... so unfortunately I think it has to be all or nothing. Perhaps all elected senators / MPs need to pass a security clearance check ... as surely that would have enough checks and balances, and wouldn't need constitutional change to move the bar.

Honestly, I think an oath that you'll serve the people of Australia and no foreign power should be sufficient. There's no doubt in my mind that any of the people that are currently affected by this situation are not genuine in their allegiance to Australia. Equally, renouncing your citizenship doesn't mean you can't still be do things in favour of your former country.

Plenty of evidence in that Four Corners story about Chinese influence where Australian citizens of chinese descent appeared to be donating money to political parties to persuade them to follow pro-CCP policy lines for example.

You're probably right. I find it hard to believe someone that seems to be gainfully employed in a science based/mining field could have that much trouble comprehending simple statements and be able to do their job effectively. Saying that we probably all know people that aren't worthy of promotion but due to circumstances have been able to climb the ladder.

There is nothing wrong with that comment.

Think about it. We have had 5 PMs in 6 years. And who knows, but there is potential for another PM to fall depending on how this latest citizenship debacle pans out. Politics in Australia has been diabolical for the last few years. We are increasingly unstable, and Government appears less able to Govern. 

Now put yourself in the shoes of a foreigner - of a European, or Asian, or American country. Or even in the shoes of a Kiwi. They are all laughing at us literally. Those interested in politics are commenting and the look isn't a good one to say the least. 

Also, trolls are not polite usually. I have never trolled anyone to cause offence or just be nuisance. It's not my style or intent. I am quite happy to agree with people, like I did with you earlier. As for picking a small part, well I did do that when I said that politicians should be vetted so as to allow the vast majority of dual citizens to occupy Federal Office. That is a good thing for democracy because it opens up the Parliament to potentially millions of dual citizens like me. At the same time, it was agreeing with you probably 90% because dual citizens of enemy Nations to Australia should be excluded. All very valid points, but I doubt the Australian people will vote for it in a plebiscite in order to change the Constitution so nothing will change. The rules will remain in place which means political movements will have to button up their candidate vetting.