rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xonce again, have some more salt 433 lol....... Personally, I'm much better off financially under a liberal government. At the end of the day, if some dumb country fucks on minimum wage want to vote to give me a tax cut then I'm fine with that lmao More likely they voted to keep the economy strong to secure their own jobs and create new jobs. A Labor government risks everything, no one wants to end up like Greece.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xonce again, have some more salt 433 lol....... Personally, I'm much better off financially under a liberal government. At the end of the day, if some dumb country fucks on minimum wage want to vote to give me a tax cut then I'm fine with that lmao As someone in the top bracket I get a massive tax cut as well. Happy days.(?!) Obviously the government will lose literally 100's of billions of dollars in revenue over the years but when little Johnny is lying in a poorly resourced hospital or little Jenny's school can't get equipment for a classroom well that's just bad luck. Cheers Scomo.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xI was born during Hawke's tenure but have never really read up on his work. Objectively, what were his feats and failures? Many seem to have fonder memories of him and the country seemed quite united back in those days. Happy to read anecdotes. Floated the dollar Cut tariffs Brought the economy into the 21st century Led the world against mining in Antarctica Protected the Great Barrier Reef Stopped the damming of the Franklin Medicare Created the wages accord and more or less put a stop to union strikes Reformed the waterfront dozens of other things as well. Sad, sad day. I realise this is a bit late, lol, but he was indeed one of the great Prime Ministers, regardless of one's political views. The other thing about Hawkey that sticks in my mind, and this wasn't really an official policy from memory, was how proudly Australian we were as a nation during his tenure. It wasn't a faux-nationalism that we've sometimes seen in the last 20 years with Australia Day and ANZAC Day, but it was a truly organic pride in our nation. I can't remember exactly how he did it, or if he in fact even had policies regarding this, but I don't recall Australians ever being more proud to be ourselves as a nation. The only times I've felt this since Hawke is when the Socceroos qualified for Germany in 2005, and at the tournament proper. For the modern left, and those lamenting this weekend's result in what should have been an unlosable election, I really believe an inspirational Hawke-type leader is what the people are crying out for - sensible economic policies, inclusiveness, helping families, while ditching the elitist, identity politics claptrap that the majority of people don't care about. I think part of it was Bob ditched God Save the Queen, which I remember singing at school, for Advance Australia Fair. The bicentenary was also coming up during his tenure which was a pretty big deal. (You'd have to wonder whether a celebration like that would fly these days with the hand-wringers.) Keating was blasting the poms at the time about various things. (How England abandoned us during WW2 when Singapore fell, how we had to cut the apron strings etc etc.) The America's cup of course and how we stuck it to the seppos which united the nation. There was also a fair groundswell of support for a republic even though there wasn't a vote for years. There was also a big push on for us to get a new flag which was exciting at the time. Hawkey established APEC, led from the front and pushed hard against apartheid which I personally thought was fantastic. (I'm sure I wasn't alone.) Hawke also granted asylum to 10 000 Chinese students after Tiananmen Square which was huge at the time. (I read somewhere that Hawke was told this wasn't going to be popular and instead of backing away from the commitment he sais 'tell me what to say to convince them'.) Brilliant. Strength of character and convictions. I think in general we, strutted is not the right word, behaved and acted (perhaps) like a world player. (Which under Hawke, we pretty much were.) I realise 'nostalgia is not what it used to be' but I do remember those years fondly. Hawke was great for all of those things and more. He also did some fantastic reforms like medicare and he introduced Super. I remember there was a real sense of pride then. But if we try that today, some people will try to ruin it. They already do with Australia Day and so on. Even if they move the date, the activists will try and make the country feel bad and guilty. A Hawke type character would have romped it in. But I don't believe today's ALP will be ok with a Hawke type the way they are going. ALP is off the rails big time. But this is what the Australian People want. They want another Hawkey. So they just the most sensible option yesterday that was available. ScoMo is largely unproven too. He has a great opportunity now to tap into this. He is a man people can relate to. Put it this way. Who would you rather have a beer with? 1) Shorten, or 2) ScoMo Even the fact everyone calls him ScoMo says a lot. It says that he is generally likeable unlike Shorten who isn't.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
One thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people.
Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great.
Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xonce again, have some more salt 433 lol....... Personally, I'm much better off financially under a liberal government. At the end of the day, if some dumb country fucks on minimum wage want to vote to give me a tax cut then I'm fine with that lmao As someone in the top bracket I get a massive tax cut as well. Happy days.(?!) Obviously the government will lose literally 100's of billions of dollars in revenue over the years but when little Johnny is lying in a poorly resourced hospital or little Jenny's school can't get equipment for a classroom well that's just bad luck. Cheers Scomo. Australian schools and hospitals , even under a Liberal government, will still be some of the most well resourced and funded in the world. The notion that people who do well in life must be taxed through the nose to afford adequate hospital and school services is a myth.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. The other take away is that spending through the nose and trying to buy votes doesn’t equate to victory.
|
|
|
|
|
sub007
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. This. Hilary did the same against Trump and lost. As I have said over and over, shit will always beat shit lite.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xonce again, have some more salt 433 lol....... Personally, I'm much better off financially under a liberal government. At the end of the day, if some dumb country fucks on minimum wage want to vote to give me a tax cut then I'm fine with that lmao As someone in the top bracket I get a massive tax cut as well. Happy days.(?!) Obviously the government will lose literally 100's of billions of dollars in revenue over the years but when little Johnny is lying in a poorly resourced hospital or little Jenny's school can't get equipment for a classroom well that's just bad luck. Cheers Scomo. Australian schools and hospitals , even under a Liberal government, will still be some of the most well resourced and funded in the world. The notion that people who do well in life must be taxed through the nose to afford adequate hospital and school services is a myth. Out of interest where (or how) do they propose to make up the shortfall? (Because company taxes are coming down too.)
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJesus one nation getting 22 percent in Hunter? Why are you surprised? This is just the pendulum swinging back as happened in the US, UK and Europe. People have more than gutful of the far leftists identity politics, intolerance, and agendas. These people just want to maintain their lives. Ghey;re not buying in to the "progressives" world view because it offers them nothing. The only ones who don't get it are the Left themselves. I, for one, can't wait for the state-enforced homosexuality and mandatory Quran readings in kindergarten when the SJWs take over. Any day now, right? Or how about removing gender from birth certificates and giving people the choice to choose their gender depending on their feelings? Gonna happen soon! Gender is a social construct. No it isn’t, it’s whether you have a dick or a vag. No, gender is an artificial construct made by society. What you're referring to is "sex", which is biological. Gender =/= sex. No sir, google it, gender was dick /vag before radical feminists hijacked it in the 70s, and turned it into this malleable thing along some imaginary continuum. This is just to Rusty and Rusty only. And this is a genuine question. How does someone who doesn't feel comfortable identifying as a man or woman, for whatever reason, affect you? Can you explain how you are personally put out by allowing someone to call themselves, or identify, as another gender? I simply can't understand the angst. Could I ever see myself marrying another man or calling myself a woman? No. But does that mean I have to be against other people who want to do the same? Please help me understand what your problem is. As for 'gender fluidity' and all that which obviously gets your hackles up. There is obviously a spectrum. You only have to look at a 'woman' like Caster Semanya to see that, despite your offerings and the fact she doesn't have a dick, it's not as clear cut as you would like to make out. Oh please. Gender fluidity is a crock. Semenya gender falls outside of the norm, because she/he has abnormal physiology, multiple times outside of the normal. Yes its ABNORMAL. Its not a "spectrum". The problem is that leftist ideology has now infiltrated science as well and is forcing the re-classification of biological fact to suit. Does she need to be "treated"- NO, unless she wants to compete with people that do not have ABNORMAL physiology. She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce. Sorry to offend but its true.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJesus one nation getting 22 percent in Hunter? Why are you surprised? This is just the pendulum swinging back as happened in the US, UK and Europe. People have more than gutful of the far leftists identity politics, intolerance, and agendas. These people just want to maintain their lives. Ghey;re not buying in to the "progressives" world view because it offers them nothing. The only ones who don't get it are the Left themselves. I, for one, can't wait for the state-enforced homosexuality and mandatory Quran readings in kindergarten when the SJWs take over. Any day now, right? Or how about removing gender from birth certificates and giving people the choice to choose their gender depending on their feelings? Gonna happen soon! Gender is a social construct. No it isn’t, it’s whether you have a dick or a vag. No, gender is an artificial construct made by society. What you're referring to is "sex", which is biological. Gender =/= sex. No sir, google it, gender was dick /vag before radical feminists hijacked it in the 70s, and turned it into this malleable thing along some imaginary continuum. This is just to Rusty and Rusty only. And this is a genuine question. How does someone who doesn't feel comfortable identifying as a man or woman, for whatever reason, affect you? Can you explain how you are personally put out by allowing someone to call themselves, or identify, as another gender? I simply can't understand the angst. Could I ever see myself marrying another man or calling myself a woman? No. But does that mean I have to be against other people who want to do the same? Please help me understand what your problem is. As for 'gender fluidity' and all that which obviously gets your hackles up. There is obviously a spectrum. You only have to look at a 'woman' like Caster Semanya to see that, despite your offerings and the fact she doesn't have a dick, it's not as clear cut as you would like to make out. Oh please. Gender fluidity is a crock. Semenya gender falls outside of the norm, because she/he has abnormal physiology, multiple times outside of the normal. Yes its ABNORMAL. Its not a "spectrum". The problem is that leftist ideology has now infiltrated science as well and is forcing the re-classification of biological fact to suit. Does she need to be "treated"- NO, unless she wants to compete with people that do not have ABNORMAL physiology. She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce. Sorry to offend but its true. Yeah I didn't ask you.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
sydneyfc1987
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. This. Hilary did the same against Trump and lost. As I have said over and over, shit will always beat shit lite. I don't think I saw a single ad that wasn't a smear/attack the other party ad from labor or liberal. Pretty disgraceful from both sides tbh.
(VAR) IS NAVY BLUE
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. Yep, don't offer any policy agenda at all. Just peddle out the "Labor is shit with the economy" chestnut (despite keeping us relatively unscathed from the GFC) and woo people with off-brand trickle-down economics (which has empirically shown to fail time and time again) and people will fall for it. If you're a low income earner and voted Liberal, the next time they cut healthcare and education and you complain I will have zero sympathy. You deserve it.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. This. Hilary did the same against Trump and lost. As I have said over and over, shit will always beat shit lite. The evidence is that increased funding for schools has not improved education outcomes. In fact Australia ranks poorly in education outcomes https://www.smh.com.au/education/un-agency-ranks-australia-39-out-of-41-countries-for-quality-education-20170615-gwrt9u.htmlThe issue is the quality of the teachers, not the money thrown at it.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJesus one nation getting 22 percent in Hunter? Why are you surprised? This is just the pendulum swinging back as happened in the US, UK and Europe. People have more than gutful of the far leftists identity politics, intolerance, and agendas. These people just want to maintain their lives. Ghey;re not buying in to the "progressives" world view because it offers them nothing. The only ones who don't get it are the Left themselves. I, for one, can't wait for the state-enforced homosexuality and mandatory Quran readings in kindergarten when the SJWs take over. Any day now, right? Or how about removing gender from birth certificates and giving people the choice to choose their gender depending on their feelings? Gonna happen soon! Gender is a social construct. No it isn’t, it’s whether you have a dick or a vag. No, gender is an artificial construct made by society. What you're referring to is "sex", which is biological. Gender =/= sex. No sir, google it, gender was dick /vag before radical feminists hijacked it in the 70s, and turned it into this malleable thing along some imaginary continuum. This is just to Rusty and Rusty only. And this is a genuine question. How does someone who doesn't feel comfortable identifying as a man or woman, for whatever reason, affect you? Can you explain how you are personally put out by allowing someone to call themselves, or identify, as another gender? I simply can't understand the angst. Could I ever see myself marrying another man or calling myself a woman? No. But does that mean I have to be against other people who want to do the same? Please help me understand what your problem is. As for 'gender fluidity' and all that which obviously gets your hackles up. There is obviously a spectrum. You only have to look at a 'woman' like Caster Semanya to see that, despite your offerings and the fact she doesn't have a dick, it's not as clear cut as you would like to make out. Oh please. Gender fluidity is a crock. Semenya gender falls outside of the norm, because she/he has abnormal physiology, multiple times outside of the normal. Yes its ABNORMAL. Its not a "spectrum". The problem is that leftist ideology has now infiltrated science as well and is forcing the re-classification of biological fact to suit. Does she need to be "treated"- NO, unless she wants to compete with people that do not have ABNORMAL physiology. She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce. Sorry to offend but its true. Yeah I didn't ask you. pfft.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. The take away from this election should be yto treat voters with respect and don't partake in elitist class warfare against other demographics or sectors and to stay away from identity politics. ALP do scare campaigns too. Do you remember the Medicare SMS messages at the last election?
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. Yep, don't offer any policy agenda at all. Just peddle out the "Labor is shit with the economy" chestnut (despite keeping us relatively unscathed from the GFC) and woo people with off-brand trickle-down economics (which has empirically shown to fail time and time again) and people will fall for it. If you're a low income earner and voted Liberal, the next time they cut healthcare and education and you complain I will have zero sympathy. You deserve it. @433 - Tried to PM you before but I click on your name and get this bloke. minnyrhodiumLast Active: 12 Years Ago
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. Yep, don't offer any policy agenda at all. Just peddle out the "Labor is shit with the economy" chestnut (despite keeping us relatively unscathed from the GFC) and woo people with off-brand trickle-down economics (which has empirically shown to fail time and time again) and people will fall for it. If you're a low income earner and voted Liberal, the next time they cut healthcare and education and you complain I will have zero sympathy. You deserve it. It wasn't ALP that left you unscathed from the GFC. It was Howard/Costello
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJesus one nation getting 22 percent in Hunter? Why are you surprised? This is just the pendulum swinging back as happened in the US, UK and Europe. People have more than gutful of the far leftists identity politics, intolerance, and agendas. These people just want to maintain their lives. Ghey;re not buying in to the "progressives" world view because it offers them nothing. The only ones who don't get it are the Left themselves. I, for one, can't wait for the state-enforced homosexuality and mandatory Quran readings in kindergarten when the SJWs take over. Any day now, right? Or how about removing gender from birth certificates and giving people the choice to choose their gender depending on their feelings? Gonna happen soon! Gender is a social construct. No it isn’t, it’s whether you have a dick or a vag. No, gender is an artificial construct made by society. What you're referring to is "sex", which is biological. Gender =/= sex. No sir, google it, gender was dick /vag before radical feminists hijacked it in the 70s, and turned it into this malleable thing along some imaginary continuum. This is just to Rusty and Rusty only. And this is a genuine question. How does someone who doesn't feel comfortable identifying as a man or woman, for whatever reason, affect you? Can you explain how you are personally put out by allowing someone to call themselves, or identify, as another gender? I simply can't understand the angst. Could I ever see myself marrying another man or calling myself a woman? No. But does that mean I have to be against other people who want to do the same? Please help me understand what your problem is. As for 'gender fluidity' and all that which obviously gets your hackles up. There is obviously a spectrum. You only have to look at a 'woman' like Caster Semanya to see that, despite your offerings and the fact she doesn't have a dick, it's not as clear cut as you would like to make out. Oh please. Gender fluidity is a crock. Semenya gender falls outside of the norm, because she/he has abnormal physiology, multiple times outside of the normal. Yes its ABNORMAL. Its not a "spectrum". The problem is that leftist ideology has now infiltrated science as well and is forcing the re-classification of biological fact to suit. Does she need to be "treated"- NO, unless she wants to compete with people that do not have ABNORMAL physiology. She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce. Sorry to offend but its true. Yeah I didn't ask you. pfft. Fuck it. I'll bite. I take it you think homosexuality is a choice based on this... "She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce."Go on. I'll wait.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xonce again, have some more salt 433 lol....... Personally, I'm much better off financially under a liberal government. At the end of the day, if some dumb country fucks on minimum wage want to vote to give me a tax cut then I'm fine with that lmao As someone in the top bracket I get a massive tax cut as well. Happy days.(?!) Obviously the government will lose literally 100's of billions of dollars in revenue over the years but when little Johnny is lying in a poorly resourced hospital or little Jenny's school can't get equipment for a classroom well that's just bad luck. Cheers Scomo. Donate as much as you can to the charity of your choice Where it says "Deductions, Donations" write NIL. Problem solved.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJesus one nation getting 22 percent in Hunter? Why are you surprised? This is just the pendulum swinging back as happened in the US, UK and Europe. People have more than gutful of the far leftists identity politics, intolerance, and agendas. These people just want to maintain their lives. Ghey;re not buying in to the "progressives" world view because it offers them nothing. The only ones who don't get it are the Left themselves. I, for one, can't wait for the state-enforced homosexuality and mandatory Quran readings in kindergarten when the SJWs take over. Any day now, right? Or how about removing gender from birth certificates and giving people the choice to choose their gender depending on their feelings? Gonna happen soon! Gender is a social construct. No it isn’t, it’s whether you have a dick or a vag. No, gender is an artificial construct made by society. What you're referring to is "sex", which is biological. Gender =/= sex. No sir, google it, gender was dick /vag before radical feminists hijacked it in the 70s, and turned it into this malleable thing along some imaginary continuum. This is just to Rusty and Rusty only. And this is a genuine question. How does someone who doesn't feel comfortable identifying as a man or woman, for whatever reason, affect you? Can you explain how you are personally put out by allowing someone to call themselves, or identify, as another gender? I simply can't understand the angst. Could I ever see myself marrying another man or calling myself a woman? No. But does that mean I have to be against other people who want to do the same? Please help me understand what your problem is. As for 'gender fluidity' and all that which obviously gets your hackles up. There is obviously a spectrum. You only have to look at a 'woman' like Caster Semanya to see that, despite your offerings and the fact she doesn't have a dick, it's not as clear cut as you would like to make out. Oh please. Gender fluidity is a crock. Semenya gender falls outside of the norm, because she/he has abnormal physiology, multiple times outside of the normal. Yes its ABNORMAL. Its not a "spectrum". The problem is that leftist ideology has now infiltrated science as well and is forcing the re-classification of biological fact to suit. Does she need to be "treated"- NO, unless she wants to compete with people that do not have ABNORMAL physiology. She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce. Sorry to offend but its true. Yeah I didn't ask you. pfft. Fuck it. I'll bite. I take it you think homosexuality is a choice based on this... "She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce."Go on. I'll wait. fuck it I'll bite. Gays are not sterile.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJesus one nation getting 22 percent in Hunter? Why are you surprised? This is just the pendulum swinging back as happened in the US, UK and Europe. People have more than gutful of the far leftists identity politics, intolerance, and agendas. These people just want to maintain their lives. Ghey;re not buying in to the "progressives" world view because it offers them nothing. The only ones who don't get it are the Left themselves. I, for one, can't wait for the state-enforced homosexuality and mandatory Quran readings in kindergarten when the SJWs take over. Any day now, right? Or how about removing gender from birth certificates and giving people the choice to choose their gender depending on their feelings? Gonna happen soon! Gender is a social construct. No it isn’t, it’s whether you have a dick or a vag. No, gender is an artificial construct made by society. What you're referring to is "sex", which is biological. Gender =/= sex. No sir, google it, gender was dick /vag before radical feminists hijacked it in the 70s, and turned it into this malleable thing along some imaginary continuum. This is just to Rusty and Rusty only. And this is a genuine question. How does someone who doesn't feel comfortable identifying as a man or woman, for whatever reason, affect you? Can you explain how you are personally put out by allowing someone to call themselves, or identify, as another gender? I simply can't understand the angst. Could I ever see myself marrying another man or calling myself a woman? No. But does that mean I have to be against other people who want to do the same? Please help me understand what your problem is. As for 'gender fluidity' and all that which obviously gets your hackles up. There is obviously a spectrum. You only have to look at a 'woman' like Caster Semanya to see that, despite your offerings and the fact she doesn't have a dick, it's not as clear cut as you would like to make out. Oh please. Gender fluidity is a crock. Semenya gender falls outside of the norm, because she/he has abnormal physiology, multiple times outside of the normal. Yes its ABNORMAL. Its not a "spectrum". The problem is that leftist ideology has now infiltrated science as well and is forcing the re-classification of biological fact to suit. Does she need to be "treated"- NO, unless she wants to compete with people that do not have ABNORMAL physiology. She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce. Sorry to offend but its true. Yeah I didn't ask you. pfft. Fuck it. I'll bite. I take it you think homosexuality is a choice based on this... "She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce."Go on. I'll wait. fuck it I'll bite. Gays are not sterile. Hahaha. What an out. You're the one carrying on like someone trapped in the wrong body is doing so out of choice so I'll ask the question another way. Can gays reproduce with each other? Because based on your reasoning above Darwin's theory should have sorted that long ago.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJesus one nation getting 22 percent in Hunter? Why are you surprised? This is just the pendulum swinging back as happened in the US, UK and Europe. People have more than gutful of the far leftists identity politics, intolerance, and agendas. These people just want to maintain their lives. Ghey;re not buying in to the "progressives" world view because it offers them nothing. The only ones who don't get it are the Left themselves. I, for one, can't wait for the state-enforced homosexuality and mandatory Quran readings in kindergarten when the SJWs take over. Any day now, right? Or how about removing gender from birth certificates and giving people the choice to choose their gender depending on their feelings? Gonna happen soon! Gender is a social construct. No it isn’t, it’s whether you have a dick or a vag. No, gender is an artificial construct made by society. What you're referring to is "sex", which is biological. Gender =/= sex. No sir, google it, gender was dick /vag before radical feminists hijacked it in the 70s, and turned it into this malleable thing along some imaginary continuum. This is just to Rusty and Rusty only. And this is a genuine question. How does someone who doesn't feel comfortable identifying as a man or woman, for whatever reason, affect you? Can you explain how you are personally put out by allowing someone to call themselves, or identify, as another gender? I simply can't understand the angst. Could I ever see myself marrying another man or calling myself a woman? No. But does that mean I have to be against other people who want to do the same? Please help me understand what your problem is. As for 'gender fluidity' and all that which obviously gets your hackles up. There is obviously a spectrum. You only have to look at a 'woman' like Caster Semanya to see that, despite your offerings and the fact she doesn't have a dick, it's not as clear cut as you would like to make out. Oh please. Gender fluidity is a crock. Semenya gender falls outside of the norm, because she/he has abnormal physiology, multiple times outside of the normal. Yes its ABNORMAL. Its not a "spectrum". The problem is that leftist ideology has now infiltrated science as well and is forcing the re-classification of biological fact to suit. Does she need to be "treated"- NO, unless she wants to compete with people that do not have ABNORMAL physiology. She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce. Sorry to offend but its true. Yeah I didn't ask you. pfft. Fuck it. I'll bite. I take it you think homosexuality is a choice based on this... "She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce."Go on. I'll wait. fuck it I'll bite. Gays are not sterile. Hahaha. What an out. You're the one carrying on like someone trapped in the wrong body is doing so out of choice so I'll ask the question another way. Can gays reproduce with each other? Because based on your reasoning above Darwin's theory should have sorted that long ago. Yes it is a good out. Statements of fact are the only valid outs. And no can gays cannot reproduce with each other because sex with the same sex is a behavoural choice not a physiological abnormality.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. Yep, don't offer any policy agenda at all. Just peddle out the "Labor is shit with the economy" chestnut (despite keeping us relatively unscathed from the GFC) and woo people with off-brand trickle-down economics (which has empirically shown to fail time and time again) and people will fall for it. If you're a low income earner and voted Liberal, the next time they cut healthcare and education and you complain I will have zero sympathy. You deserve it. I see the elitism and disdain for working class is rearing it’s ugly head. If anything at all what you need to learn from the Trump phenomenon, and this election, is that you didn’t lose because people are stupid and voted for tax cuts to rich people so they can suffer worse hospitals and schools, they voted because your side fucked up. Stop victim blaming and accept that your guy ran a shit campaign and despite throwing billions and billion at the electorate they still rejected him.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJesus one nation getting 22 percent in Hunter? Why are you surprised? This is just the pendulum swinging back as happened in the US, UK and Europe. People have more than gutful of the far leftists identity politics, intolerance, and agendas. These people just want to maintain their lives. Ghey;re not buying in to the "progressives" world view because it offers them nothing. The only ones who don't get it are the Left themselves. I, for one, can't wait for the state-enforced homosexuality and mandatory Quran readings in kindergarten when the SJWs take over. Any day now, right? Or how about removing gender from birth certificates and giving people the choice to choose their gender depending on their feelings? Gonna happen soon! Gender is a social construct. No it isn’t, it’s whether you have a dick or a vag. No, gender is an artificial construct made by society. What you're referring to is "sex", which is biological. Gender =/= sex. No sir, google it, gender was dick /vag before radical feminists hijacked it in the 70s, and turned it into this malleable thing along some imaginary continuum. This is just to Rusty and Rusty only. And this is a genuine question. How does someone who doesn't feel comfortable identifying as a man or woman, for whatever reason, affect you? Can you explain how you are personally put out by allowing someone to call themselves, or identify, as another gender? I simply can't understand the angst. Could I ever see myself marrying another man or calling myself a woman? No. But does that mean I have to be against other people who want to do the same? Please help me understand what your problem is. As for 'gender fluidity' and all that which obviously gets your hackles up. There is obviously a spectrum. You only have to look at a 'woman' like Caster Semanya to see that, despite your offerings and the fact she doesn't have a dick, it's not as clear cut as you would like to make out. Oh please. Gender fluidity is a crock. Semenya gender falls outside of the norm, because she/he has abnormal physiology, multiple times outside of the normal. Yes its ABNORMAL. Its not a "spectrum". The problem is that leftist ideology has now infiltrated science as well and is forcing the re-classification of biological fact to suit. Does she need to be "treated"- NO, unless she wants to compete with people that do not have ABNORMAL physiology. She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce. Sorry to offend but its true. Yeah I didn't ask you. pfft. Fuck it. I'll bite. I take it you think homosexuality is a choice based on this... "She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce."Go on. I'll wait. fuck it I'll bite. Gays are not sterile. Hahaha. What an out. You're the one carrying on like someone trapped in the wrong body is doing so out of choice so I'll ask the question another way. Can gays reproduce with each other? Because based on your reasoning above Darwin's theory should have sorted that long ago. Yes it is a good out. Statements of fact are the only valid outs. And no can gays cannot reproduce with each other because sex with the same sex is a behavoural choice not a physiological abnormality. Well at least you have the guts to state your opinion. Absolutely 100% wrong but at least we know where you stand. I honestly didn't think, besides the gay conversion therapy people in the US, that there were people in Australia that believed that in this day and age.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. Yep, don't offer any policy agenda at all. Just peddle out the "Labor is shit with the economy" chestnut (despite keeping us relatively unscathed from the GFC) and woo people with off-brand trickle-down economics (which has empirically shown to fail time and time again) and people will fall for it. If you're a low income earner and voted Liberal, the next time they cut healthcare and education and you complain I will have zero sympathy. You deserve it. I see the elitism and disdain for working class is rearing it’s ugly head. If anything at all what you need to learn from the Trump phenomenon, and this election, is that you didn’t lose because people are stupid and voted for tax cuts to rich people so they can suffer worse hospitals and schools, they voted because your side fucked up. Stop victim blaming and accept that your guy ran a shit campaign and despite throwing billions and billion at the electorate they still rejected him. Again. Because Labour gets stick all the time for 'reckless spending' where is the money coming from to pay for the revenue loss that's coming with the tax cuts for companies and wage earners. Did they actually state a position on that?
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. Yep, don't offer any policy agenda at all. Just peddle out the "Labor is shit with the economy" chestnut (despite keeping us relatively unscathed from the GFC) and woo people with off-brand trickle-down economics (which has empirically shown to fail time and time again) and people will fall for it. If you're a low income earner and voted Liberal, the next time they cut healthcare and education and you complain I will have zero sympathy. You deserve it. I see the elitism and disdain for working class is rearing it’s ugly head. If anything at all what you need to learn from the Trump phenomenon, and this election, is that you didn’t lose because people are stupid and voted for tax cuts to rich people so they can suffer worse hospitals and schools, they voted because your side fucked up. Stop victim blaming and accept that your guy ran a shit campaign and despite throwing billions and billion at the electorate they still rejected him. If you're a low income earner and you vote Liberal, you're a fucking idiot. There's no two ways about it. It's another symptom of the temporarily embarrassed millionaire phenomena - everyone is convinced that they're special and that they'll be the ones to climb the rungs and become upper class and successful through "hard work". The reality is (it's empirically shown) that if you're born poor, you will most likely die poor. If you're born into a well-off family, you'll end up well-off. Voting for policies that maintain this system is the height of stupidity, but hats off to the Liberals for being able to convince a bunch of people to vote against their own interests. +x+x+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. Yep, don't offer any policy agenda at all. Just peddle out the "Labor is shit with the economy" chestnut (despite keeping us relatively unscathed from the GFC) and woo people with off-brand trickle-down economics (which has empirically shown to fail time and time again) and people will fall for it. If you're a low income earner and voted Liberal, the next time they cut healthcare and education and you complain I will have zero sympathy. You deserve it. @433 - Tried to PM you before but I click on your name and get this bloke. minnyrhodiumLast Active: 12 Years Ago Must be a glitch, I made this account 6 years ago. I also received your PM and replied to it, I assume you must not have got it?
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. Yep, don't offer any policy agenda at all. Just peddle out the "Labor is shit with the economy" chestnut (despite keeping us relatively unscathed from the GFC) and woo people with off-brand trickle-down economics (which has empirically shown to fail time and time again) and people will fall for it. If you're a low income earner and voted Liberal, the next time they cut healthcare and education and you complain I will have zero sympathy. You deserve it. I see the elitism and disdain for working class is rearing it’s ugly head. If anything at all what you need to learn from the Trump phenomenon, and this election, is that you didn’t lose because people are stupid and voted for tax cuts to rich people so they can suffer worse hospitals and schools, they voted because your side fucked up. Stop victim blaming and accept that your guy ran a shit campaign and despite throwing billions and billion at the electorate they still rejected him. Again. Because Labour gets stick all the time for 'reckless spending' where is the money coming from to pay for the revenue loss that's coming with the tax cuts for companies and wage earners. Did they actually state a position on that? Yes they do have a position. They want to cut tax because of bracket creep hitting small income earners. They want to cut tax to companies to make them more competitive internationally, so that they don't go offshore.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xJesus one nation getting 22 percent in Hunter? Why are you surprised? This is just the pendulum swinging back as happened in the US, UK and Europe. People have more than gutful of the far leftists identity politics, intolerance, and agendas. These people just want to maintain their lives. Ghey;re not buying in to the "progressives" world view because it offers them nothing. The only ones who don't get it are the Left themselves. I, for one, can't wait for the state-enforced homosexuality and mandatory Quran readings in kindergarten when the SJWs take over. Any day now, right? Or how about removing gender from birth certificates and giving people the choice to choose their gender depending on their feelings? Gonna happen soon! Gender is a social construct. No it isn’t, it’s whether you have a dick or a vag. No, gender is an artificial construct made by society. What you're referring to is "sex", which is biological. Gender =/= sex. No sir, google it, gender was dick /vag before radical feminists hijacked it in the 70s, and turned it into this malleable thing along some imaginary continuum. This is just to Rusty and Rusty only. And this is a genuine question. How does someone who doesn't feel comfortable identifying as a man or woman, for whatever reason, affect you? Can you explain how you are personally put out by allowing someone to call themselves, or identify, as another gender? I simply can't understand the angst. Could I ever see myself marrying another man or calling myself a woman? No. But does that mean I have to be against other people who want to do the same? Please help me understand what your problem is. As for 'gender fluidity' and all that which obviously gets your hackles up. There is obviously a spectrum. You only have to look at a 'woman' like Caster Semanya to see that, despite your offerings and the fact she doesn't have a dick, it's not as clear cut as you would like to make out. Oh please. Gender fluidity is a crock. Semenya gender falls outside of the norm, because she/he has abnormal physiology, multiple times outside of the normal. Yes its ABNORMAL. Its not a "spectrum". The problem is that leftist ideology has now infiltrated science as well and is forcing the re-classification of biological fact to suit. Does she need to be "treated"- NO, unless she wants to compete with people that do not have ABNORMAL physiology. She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce. Sorry to offend but its true. Yeah I didn't ask you. pfft. Fuck it. I'll bite. I take it you think homosexuality is a choice based on this... "She is also sterile,and that too is an abnormality, and also arises from her abnormal physiology, and is nature's way of ensuring that only those with normal attributes get to reproduce."Go on. I'll wait. fuck it I'll bite. Gays are not sterile. Hahaha. What an out. You're the one carrying on like someone trapped in the wrong body is doing so out of choice so I'll ask the question another way. Can gays reproduce with each other? Because based on your reasoning above Darwin's theory should have sorted that long ago. Yes it is a good out. Statements of fact are the only valid outs. And no can gays cannot reproduce with each other because sex with the same sex is a behavoural choice not a physiological abnormality. Well at least you have the guts to state your opinion. Absolutely 100% wrong but at least we know where you stand. I honestly didn't think, besides the gay conversion therapy people in the US, that there were people in Australia that believed that in this day and age. WTF are you on about? You now introduce Gay conversion therapy because your false-equivalence argument is dead and has no where to go Semenya has a physiological abnormality. Her condition is not on the gender-spectrum- because that is just another made up term. Gays do not have a physiological abnormality- there is no credible evidence that that is there is any genetic or physiological abnormality. You are the one who introduced this false-equivalence argument. I couldn't give a rats about what floats people's boats. There's a heap of other things that heteros engage in that I fund repugnant, but whatever.
|
|
|
|
|
Enzo Bearzot
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 4.5K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xOne thing I admired about Shorten was that he took significant policy risks. He could’ve easily played small target and waltzed into government, but instead he offered up significant reforms particularly in the housing and financial sectors to address inequality of opportunity, particularly for young people. Neg gearing and CGT reform were a couple of his policies I agreed with, strongly, and there was a point I almost considered voting Labor, especially also as my wife works in Childcare, but in the end their campaign became another typical Labor spend a thon and debt bomb and the macro risks to the economy became too great. Sadly I don’t think the next Labor leader will take these kinds of risks, so going into the next election they will probably take on a more conservative economic agenda and turn to social policy and progressive values to differentiate from the government. That's the take away from this election. Offer nothing and run a scare campaign against whatever opposition says and hope the other mob stuffs up. Yep, don't offer any policy agenda at all. Just peddle out the "Labor is shit with the economy" chestnut (despite keeping us relatively unscathed from the GFC) and woo people with off-brand trickle-down economics (which has empirically shown to fail time and time again) and people will fall for it. If you're a low income earner and voted Liberal, the next time they cut healthcare and education and you complain I will have zero sympathy. You deserve it. I see the elitism and disdain for working class is rearing it’s ugly head. If anything at all what you need to learn from the Trump phenomenon, and this election, is that you didn’t lose because people are stupid and voted for tax cuts to rich people so they can suffer worse hospitals and schools, they voted because your side fucked up. Stop victim blaming and accept that your guy ran a shit campaign and despite throwing billions and billion at the electorate they still rejected him. If you're a low income earner and you vote Liberal, you're a fucking idiot. There's no two ways about it. It's another symptom of the temporarily embarrassed millionaire phenomena - everyone is convinced that they're special and that they'll be the ones to climb the rungs and become upper class and successful through "hard work". The reality is (it's empirically shown) that if you're born poor, you will most likely die poor. If you're born into a well-off family, you'll end up well-off. Voting for policies that maintain this system is the height of stupidity, but hats off to the Liberals for being able to convince a bunch of people to vote against their own interests. +x What modern day Labor voters don't get is that many of their traditional voting bloc have rentals, negative gear, are effceted CGT discount, have small trades businesses, or started off ass workers then moved to their own small businesses or work for themselves or are retired and receive franking credits. MANY OF THESE PEOPLE STARTED AS LOW INCOME EARNERS.. Labor called them the Top end of Town and attacked all of them and their wealth and incomes. Low income earners do not want handouts from others. They do not want Labors socialist income and wealth re-distribution They want the opportunity and the conditions to BE LIKE THE OTHERS. And they want to keep more of what they have when they get there. Labors Franking credits policy wouldn't have affect me now- but they could when I get there in 17 years time. If you really are struggling to see why Labor lost then try and find last nights ( early this morning) ABC election post-mortem panel show that included Stan Grant and Magda Szubanksi. Stand comments nailed it all
|
|
|
|