|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. mcjules has his agenda/preference that I respect just as we all do but your spot on vanlassen but he'll counter otherwise, maybe in Craig Thomson speak :) but the creme della creme his quote re labour and gillard of the time - "One of the few black marks of that government." takes the cake, you can't be serious as Mac once said but as said he will come back with his justified counter that will hardly be worth a response, sorry mate just how I see it. Yes I got to admit I had a big chuckle with that comment myself. Ever since John Howard was ousted, all successive Australian Administrations have been just one big huge black mark, one after the other. Australia hasn't had a Government since John Howard. Why might as well of had no Government at all and be like Belgium. It was a big mistake removing him. He was the last leader Australia ever had. He was closer to a war criminal than a leader. Why and how?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
I'm not sure what was my highlight tonight, One Nation tanking so hard or Scott Emerson cracking the sads. The local LNP candidate getting the ass was also very good.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xJust back to the SSM referendum for a moment- I reject this idea that the no campaign wasn’t nasty. I live in one of the most no voting parts of Sydney. Every day as I go to work I walk past a Catholic school, and during the referendum they had an “it’s ok to say no” sign at the front gate. There’s nothing nasty about the slogan per se, but if you were a gay student, how would you feel walking past that sign every day, knowing your school and church hate you? The only nasty thing here is telling gay students that upholding a traditional view of marriage is equal to hate.
|
|
|
|
|
Lastbroadcast
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
And on the issue of left/right -
Sydney’s politics has changed significantly in the last fifteen years. Many new migrants have a conservative social streak, even though they vote Labor at every election. At the same time, many children of the upper classes have a progressive social streak.
There are actually very few places in Sydney where the economic left and social left coexist. Perhaps in Albo’s inner city seat, but that’s about it.
The political divide in Australia is still, generally speaking, about the economy and social class. While the votes of major parties have been falling, it is still generally true that working class people in cities vote Labor, and the upper middle class vote liberal.
It means that social issues cut across the divide. That’s why Tony Abbott’s seat, one of the safest liberal seats in NSW voted 75pc for SSM, while one of the safest Labor seats (Jason Clare in Bankstown) voted roughly the same for no.
If we look at the Euthanasia bill - some of the biggest supporters of the bill were actually rural National Party MPs.
|
|
|
|
|
Lastbroadcast
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.6K,
Visits: 0
|
Just back to the SSM referendum for a moment-
I reject this idea that the no campaign wasn’t nasty. I live in one of the most no voting parts of Sydney. Every day as I go to work I walk past a Catholic school, and during the referendum they had an “it’s ok to say no” sign at the front gate.
There’s nothing nasty about the slogan per se, but if you were a gay student, how would you feel walking past that sign every day, knowing your school and church hate you?
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xlol at the left/right identity politics tribalism that so many people still cling too. -PB Oh look, it's someone who is above the left/right divide and sees the world in four dimensions, unlike all of us riff raff who can only comprehend in binary. You're the biggest Liberal shill going around. Almost all your posts are whataboutisms
|
|
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
Help us all if the LNP & One Nation get into power tonight.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+xlol at the left/right identity politics tribalism that so many people still cling too. -PB Oh look, it's someone who is above the left/right divide and sees the world in four dimensions, unlike all of us riff raff who can only comprehend in binary.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
lol at the left/right identity politics tribalism that so many people still cling too. -PB
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
it doesnt matter, no one in the press or celebrity will ever implicate Barack Obama was a war criminal. The left is very soft when it comes to condemning the own.
|
|
|
|
|
433
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 6.7K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. mcjules has his agenda/preference that I respect just as we all do but your spot on vanlassen but he'll counter otherwise, maybe in Craig Thomson speak :) but the creme della creme his quote re labour and gillard of the time - "One of the few black marks of that government." takes the cake, you can't be serious as Mac once said but as said he will come back with his justified counter that will hardly be worth a response, sorry mate just how I see it. Yes I got to admit I had a big chuckle with that comment myself. Ever since John Howard was ousted, all successive Australian Administrations have been just one big huge black mark, one after the other. Australia hasn't had a Government since John Howard. Why might as well of had no Government at all and be like Belgium. It was a big mistake removing him. He was the last leader Australia ever had. He was closer to a war criminal than a leader. Obama dropped bombs on ME too, does that make him a war criminal also? One rule for conservatives, another for liberals. Probably marginally less given that he didn't start the war. But then again Obama's drone strike history is horrific, so yeah he probably would fall under war criminal too.
|
|
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. mcjules has his agenda/preference that I respect just as we all do but your spot on vanlassen but he'll counter otherwise, maybe in Craig Thomson speak :) but the creme della creme his quote re labour and gillard of the time - "One of the few black marks of that government." takes the cake, you can't be serious as Mac once said but as said he will come back with his justified counter that will hardly be worth a response, sorry mate just how I see it. Yes I got to admit I had a big chuckle with that comment myself. Ever since John Howard was ousted, all successive Australian Administrations have been just one big huge black mark, one after the other. Australia hasn't had a Government since John Howard. Why might as well of had no Government at all and be like Belgium. It was a big mistake removing him. He was the last leader Australia ever had. He was closer to a war criminal than a leader. Obama dropped bombs on ME too, does that make him a war criminal also? One rule for conservatives, another for liberals. I'm perfectly fine calling them both war mongering Orwellian scum serving Israels interests first
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. mcjules has his agenda/preference that I respect just as we all do but your spot on vanlassen but he'll counter otherwise, maybe in Craig Thomson speak :) but the creme della creme his quote re labour and gillard of the time - "One of the few black marks of that government." takes the cake, you can't be serious as Mac once said but as said he will come back with his justified counter that will hardly be worth a response, sorry mate just how I see it. Yes I got to admit I had a big chuckle with that comment myself. Ever since John Howard was ousted, all successive Australian Administrations have been just one big huge black mark, one after the other. Australia hasn't had a Government since John Howard. Why might as well of had no Government at all and be like Belgium. It was a big mistake removing him. He was the last leader Australia ever had. He was closer to a war criminal than a leader. Obama dropped bombs on ME too, does that make him a war criminal also? One rule for conservatives, another for liberals. 1st rule of being a Leftist.
|
|
|
|
rusty
|
|
Group: Banned Members
Posts: 6.1K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. mcjules has his agenda/preference that I respect just as we all do but your spot on vanlassen but he'll counter otherwise, maybe in Craig Thomson speak :) but the creme della creme his quote re labour and gillard of the time - "One of the few black marks of that government." takes the cake, you can't be serious as Mac once said but as said he will come back with his justified counter that will hardly be worth a response, sorry mate just how I see it. Yes I got to admit I had a big chuckle with that comment myself. Ever since John Howard was ousted, all successive Australian Administrations have been just one big huge black mark, one after the other. Australia hasn't had a Government since John Howard. Why might as well of had no Government at all and be like Belgium. It was a big mistake removing him. He was the last leader Australia ever had. He was closer to a war criminal than a leader. Obama dropped bombs on ME too, does that make him a war criminal also? One rule for conservatives, another for liberals.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. mcjules has his agenda/preference that I respect just as we all do but your spot on vanlassen but he'll counter otherwise, maybe in Craig Thomson speak :) but the creme della creme his quote re labour and gillard of the time - "One of the few black marks of that government." takes the cake, you can't be serious as Mac once said but as said he will come back with his justified counter that will hardly be worth a response, sorry mate just how I see it. Yes I got to admit I had a big chuckle with that comment myself. Ever since John Howard was ousted, all successive Australian Administrations have been just one big huge black mark, one after the other. Australia hasn't had a Government since John Howard. Why might as well of had no Government at all and be like Belgium. It was a big mistake removing him. He was the last leader Australia ever had. He was closer to a war criminal than a leader. Well that's just as dumb as the other comment.
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
Roar_Brisbane
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 14K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. mcjules has his agenda/preference that I respect just as we all do but your spot on vanlassen but he'll counter otherwise, maybe in Craig Thomson speak :) but the creme della creme his quote re labour and gillard of the time - "One of the few black marks of that government." takes the cake, you can't be serious as Mac once said but as said he will come back with his justified counter that will hardly be worth a response, sorry mate just how I see it. Yes I got to admit I had a big chuckle with that comment myself. Ever since John Howard was ousted, all successive Australian Administrations have been just one big huge black mark, one after the other. Australia hasn't had a Government since John Howard. Why might as well of had no Government at all and be like Belgium. It was a big mistake removing him. He was the last leader Australia ever had. He was closer to a war criminal than a leader.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. Ouch multi pronged attack :laugh: Anyone who has followed politics for any decent amount of time should have already known that about the Labor party. TBH I was surprised that some other very safe Labor seats like Port Adelaide (wharfies) were above 60%. Social conservatives (mainly Catholics) have been a strong voting block in the Labor caucus for a very long time. As Sokorny said, there are a multitude of issues why people vote for one party or the other and social liberalism isn't really a divider for the major parties as there are Liberal wets and Labor left politicians that hold almost identical views. In fact the reasons why I think the Gillard government was pretty decent and why people are having a "laugh" over that statement are due to other policy ideas that we disagree on. Still not really sure why I got attacked for posting something negative about the Labor party :laugh: I certainly don't agree with all their policies, I do however strongly prefer them over the LNP or anything more conservative. I didn't mean for it to come across as an attack. I just meant to make the point that the way we stereotype the supporters of each side of politics is not necessarily a true reflection of who those people truly are. I was pretty surprised at the results from some of the inner west electorates in Sydney and a little embarrassed that NSW had the lowest percentage of Yes voters. Was tongue in cheek. It was all pretty tame and wasn't personal so all good. I agree it is a good reminder that the major parties are not divided on whether they're socially progressive or conservative.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. Ouch multi pronged attack :laugh: Anyone who has followed politics for any decent amount of time should have already known that about the Labor party. TBH I was surprised that some other very safe Labor seats like Port Adelaide (wharfies) were above 60%. Social conservatives (mainly Catholics) have been a strong voting block in the Labor caucus for a very long time. As Sokorny said, there are a multitude of issues why people vote for one party or the other and social liberalism isn't really a divider for the major parties as there are Liberal wets and Labor left politicians that hold almost identical views. In fact the reasons why I think the Gillard government was pretty decent and why people are having a "laugh" over that statement are due to other policy ideas that we disagree on. Still not really sure why I got attacked for posting something negative about the Labor party :laugh: I certainly don't agree with all their policies, I do however strongly prefer them over the LNP or anything more conservative. I didn't mean for it to come across as an attack. I just meant to make the point that the way we stereotype the supporters of each side of politics is not necessarily a true reflection of who those people truly are. I was pretty surprised at the results from some of the inner west electorates in Sydney and a little embarrassed that NSW had the lowest percentage of Yes voters.
|
|
|
|
|
Muz
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 15K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. Still not really sure why I got attacked for posting something negative about the Labor party Hint: "One of the few black marks of that government."
Member since 2008.
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. Ouch multi pronged attack :laugh: Anyone who has followed politics for any decent amount of time should have already known that about the Labor party. TBH I was surprised that some other very safe Labor seats like Port Adelaide (wharfies) were above 60%. Social conservatives (mainly Catholics) have been a strong voting block in the Labor caucus for a very long time. As Sokorny said, there are a multitude of issues why people vote for one party or the other and social liberalism isn't really a divider for the major parties as there are Liberal wets and Labor left politicians that hold almost identical views. In fact the reasons why I think the Gillard government was pretty decent and why people are having a "laugh" over that statement are due to other policy ideas that we disagree on. Still not really sure why I got attacked for posting something negative about the Labor party :laugh: I certainly don't agree with all their policies, I do however strongly prefer them over the LNP or anything more conservative.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. mcjules has his agenda/preference that I respect just as we all do but your spot on vanlassen but he'll counter otherwise, maybe in Craig Thomson speak :) but the creme della creme his quote re labour and gillard of the time - "One of the few black marks of that government." takes the cake, you can't be serious as Mac once said but as said he will come back with his justified counter that will hardly be worth a response, sorry mate just how I see it. Yes I got to admit I had a big chuckle with that comment myself. Ever since John Howard was ousted, all successive Australian Administrations have been just one big huge black mark, one after the other. Australia hasn't had a Government since John Howard. Why might as well of had no Government at all and be like Belgium. It was a big mistake removing him. He was the last leader Australia ever had.
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. I think it is important to realise that this is one concern in politics, and generally for most Australians matters such s social welfare, economics, health, environment, law, etc. etc. are more important to political alliances for voters than same sex marriage. Agreed, which is why Labor should have had some balls and voted it in when Gillard was around.
|
|
|
|
|
LFC.
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. mcjules has his agenda/preference that I respect just as we all do but your spot on vanlassen but he'll counter otherwise, maybe in Craig Thomson speak :) but the creme della creme his quote re labour and gillard of the time - "One of the few black marks of that government." takes the cake, you can't be serious as Mac once said but as said he will come back with his justified counter that will hardly be worth a response, sorry mate just how I see it.
Love Football
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country. I think it is important to realise that this is one concern in politics, and generally for most Australians matters such s social welfare, economics, health, environment, law, etc. etc. are more important to political alliances for voters than same sex marriage.
|
|
|
|
|
Vanlassen
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.3K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too. The SSM vote showed that the Labor party can be just as bigoted as the Liberal Conservatives. I think you would like to believe that the union factions voting No do not represent the interests of their members but the statistics from the vote clearly show this is not the case. Nine out of the twelve electorates to vote No in NSW were Labor strongholds and some of the electorates had the highest percentage of No votes in the country. It also showed that a lot of these Liberal Conservatives (Abbott and co) do not accurately represent their electorates as their electorates had some of the highest percentage of Yes votes in the country.
|
|
|
|
|
paulbagzFC
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 44K,
Visits: 0
|
lol Mal clearly stalling having the house of reps come back for fear of the members crossing the floor. -PB
|
|
|
|
|
mcjules
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 8.4K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+xWhat was Gillard's issue with SSM anyway? She's an atheist. Yep. That made it worse. Who knows what her true opinion of it was at the time but the caucus voted against it at the Labor Conference so she didn't really have a choice anyway. One of the few black marks of that government. The thing that made it worse was that it was socially conservative (and Catholic) shoppies union that were the faction that had been blocking it. Sen. Don Farrell who was the SA leader of the SDA when I worked in retail, is voting no. When you consider the demographics in the retail and fast food industries, they are in no means representing the interests of their members. Worst union of the lot because they're in bed with business too.
Insert Gertjan Verbeek gifs here
|
|
|
|
|
mouflonrouge
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 2.8K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+x+xlol Corey Bernardi just has to be the smartest Australian politician out there at the moment. He hits the nail on the head all the time, trying to find out how deeply our National Security has been penetrated! lol Tbh I prefer my politicians when they're not making childish jokes and are actually doing things that help people. But whatever floats your boat. And Corey Bernardi is doing just that my friend - by giving people like myself a solid alternative. I don't like Pauline Hanson because I think she could be genuinely racist. However, Corey isn't a racist, but a true conservative for us who have traditional religious and family values. We use to have a home in the Liberal Party but the Young Liberals and Pine has made that party Socialists and all over the place so we need Corey and we love him because he is the rare politician who is actually forthright, stands up straight and tells it the way he believes it and not for the votes, and is a conviction leader. He is a real Man. His social media isn't mysteriously hacked and he doesn't watch porn at 2AM in the morning (not that there is anything wrong with that...). We should be very happy that there are still men of his ilk in Parliament, fighting the good fight. I've seen the left-faction takeover of liberal party as a positive really, but as you say, it's definitely been alienating to social conservative 'family values' voters. I may not like Corey - because I believe in abortion, gender and sexual fluidity etc - But yeah i'm very glad classic conservatives who aren't racists have someone to vote for that isn't Hanson. Thats definitely a positive. How large of a following does Australian Conservatives have? Do you think they might pick up a few more seats at the next election, or will he be a bit of a one man team for a while yet? I'ts been a very interesting development. Yes I describe myself as a social conservative. And what I mean by that is that I do not agree with things like abortion, ssm, gender fluidity, safe schools, euthanasia and so on, but a racist I like to think I am not which is why Hanson isn't an option. I am Ethnic myself so find Hanson quite confronting actually. But Australian Conservatives is ok for someone like me as they seem to stand up for similar type social and family values that I believe in without being offensive about it because its not about offending people or mistreating them either. I am not sure how Corey will do. I predict he should do quite well, plus he is a lot more intelligent and more astute than Hanson and your average politician. Corey knows how to handle himself and he speaks a lot of sense too and isn't being ridiculous about things like Xenophon and Hanson can be. He should outlive Hanson, and I think he will take a lot of votes away from the LNP. In fact, I think Corey is a fairly mainstream type politician. He is just religious (Catholic) and hence has those types of social values which is fine by me. The LNP in my opinion has made a terrible mistake in forsaking its traditional heartland supporter bases which are now leaving for Hanson and Corey Bernardi. The LNP is now probably even a lot more left than the ALP Governments of Hawke and Keating (which were quite sensible), whilst the ALP of today is probably bordering on towards extreme Socialism or even Communism and identity politics, in order to placate the Greens and get their preferences, which is not healthy for this country. It use to be an unwritten rule that the ALP was just slightly left of center and the Liberals were slightly right of center. Now no one knows where they stand with either the ALP or Liberals. Landscape has changed a lot, and not for the better either. What I am really looking for is a slightly right of center party with some slightl;y conservative type values. The Liberals are not providing this anymore as they are left of center which leaves us with Corey I guess. Without Corey, I might as well cast a Donkey vote. For once I actually agree with you. 40% of like 18 million people voted no, that's a lot of people he can target. One of the ironic things I've seen as a result of this poll has been the shit slinging at those who voted no even after the fact. It's ironic given the huge concerns there were over the potential mental issues associated with a protracted plebiscite within minority groups. That is what I have been trying to tell all of you a while back before I left. The YES campaign was going on and on about tolerance and respect but displayed nothing of the sort towatrds NO campaigners. No campaigners were not vindictive intolerant or even mean or cruel. They are usually from the conservative and religious parts of society but the way they were dealt with was not very good at all. You can't expect a religious person to support ssm. It just goes against fundamental principles but it doesn't mean that we hate Gay people because that is not the case. We never hate the individual, just the individual's sin and it isn't just Gay people who Sin but the entire world does and so do our clergy even. No one is immune. "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" Jesus told the angry mob as they were hurling stones and stoning to death Mary Magdelleine, who was a prostitute at the time. No one is without sin and therefore no one has the right to cast any stones, and if they do, they are in effect judging the other person and comitting a much bigger sin. You got to love people. There are no ifs or buts about that. That means you also love your neighbor, the poor, and even love your enemy or someone who has wronged you by displaying grace and forgiving them. It's much easier said than done but this is what is expected. Perhaps some sound advice you should take on board before you post in the future. I heed that advice every day of my life, not just when I post here. Or I try to because I am not always successful. You see, being Christian means also being humble and accepting and recognizing ones own faults as an unworthy sinner. I always say, that I am number one among sinners, am the most unworthy and I repent each and every day and ask to be guided by The Holy Spirit. I confess my sins, ask for forgiveness, try not to repeat and partake in communion as an unworthy recipient, partaking in the Holy Eucharist which can burn me like a hot coal and condemn my wickedness. But it sounds like others like yourself seem to have it worked out. So that means that when I meet you, I should prostrate myself and fall at your feet as the superior being you portray yourself as being. I am man enough to do that. I shall fall at your feet and kiss them. Our clergy, Priests, Bishops and our Arch should do the same because I don't think we have ever witnessed such perfection before as unworthy sinners of which we count ourselves to be among the first!
|
|
|
|
|
sokorny
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 3.2K,
Visits: 0
|
+x+x+x+x+x+x+xlol Corey Bernardi just has to be the smartest Australian politician out there at the moment. He hits the nail on the head all the time, trying to find out how deeply our National Security has been penetrated! lol Tbh I prefer my politicians when they're not making childish jokes and are actually doing things that help people. But whatever floats your boat. And Corey Bernardi is doing just that my friend - by giving people like myself a solid alternative. I don't like Pauline Hanson because I think she could be genuinely racist. However, Corey isn't a racist, but a true conservative for us who have traditional religious and family values. We use to have a home in the Liberal Party but the Young Liberals and Pine has made that party Socialists and all over the place so we need Corey and we love him because he is the rare politician who is actually forthright, stands up straight and tells it the way he believes it and not for the votes, and is a conviction leader. He is a real Man. His social media isn't mysteriously hacked and he doesn't watch porn at 2AM in the morning (not that there is anything wrong with that...). We should be very happy that there are still men of his ilk in Parliament, fighting the good fight. I've seen the left-faction takeover of liberal party as a positive really, but as you say, it's definitely been alienating to social conservative 'family values' voters. I may not like Corey - because I believe in abortion, gender and sexual fluidity etc - But yeah i'm very glad classic conservatives who aren't racists have someone to vote for that isn't Hanson. Thats definitely a positive. How large of a following does Australian Conservatives have? Do you think they might pick up a few more seats at the next election, or will he be a bit of a one man team for a while yet? I'ts been a very interesting development. Yes I describe myself as a social conservative. And what I mean by that is that I do not agree with things like abortion, ssm, gender fluidity, safe schools, euthanasia and so on, but a racist I like to think I am not which is why Hanson isn't an option. I am Ethnic myself so find Hanson quite confronting actually. But Australian Conservatives is ok for someone like me as they seem to stand up for similar type social and family values that I believe in without being offensive about it because its not about offending people or mistreating them either. I am not sure how Corey will do. I predict he should do quite well, plus he is a lot more intelligent and more astute than Hanson and your average politician. Corey knows how to handle himself and he speaks a lot of sense too and isn't being ridiculous about things like Xenophon and Hanson can be. He should outlive Hanson, and I think he will take a lot of votes away from the LNP. In fact, I think Corey is a fairly mainstream type politician. He is just religious (Catholic) and hence has those types of social values which is fine by me. The LNP in my opinion has made a terrible mistake in forsaking its traditional heartland supporter bases which are now leaving for Hanson and Corey Bernardi. The LNP is now probably even a lot more left than the ALP Governments of Hawke and Keating (which were quite sensible), whilst the ALP of today is probably bordering on towards extreme Socialism or even Communism and identity politics, in order to placate the Greens and get their preferences, which is not healthy for this country. It use to be an unwritten rule that the ALP was just slightly left of center and the Liberals were slightly right of center. Now no one knows where they stand with either the ALP or Liberals. Landscape has changed a lot, and not for the better either. What I am really looking for is a slightly right of center party with some slightl;y conservative type values. The Liberals are not providing this anymore as they are left of center which leaves us with Corey I guess. Without Corey, I might as well cast a Donkey vote. For once I actually agree with you. 40% of like 18 million people voted no, that's a lot of people he can target. One of the ironic things I've seen as a result of this poll has been the shit slinging at those who voted no even after the fact. It's ironic given the huge concerns there were over the potential mental issues associated with a protracted plebiscite within minority groups. That is what I have been trying to tell all of you a while back before I left. The YES campaign was going on and on about tolerance and respect but displayed nothing of the sort towatrds NO campaigners. No campaigners were not vindictive intolerant or even mean or cruel. They are usually from the conservative and religious parts of society but the way they were dealt with was not very good at all. You can't expect a religious person to support ssm. It just goes against fundamental principles but it doesn't mean that we hate Gay people because that is not the case. We never hate the individual, just the individual's sin and it isn't just Gay people who Sin but the entire world does and so do our clergy even. No one is immune. "Let he who is without sin, cast the first stone" Jesus told the angry mob as they were hurling stones and stoning to death Mary Magdelleine, who was a prostitute at the time. No one is without sin and therefore no one has the right to cast any stones, and if they do, they are in effect judging the other person and comitting a much bigger sin. You got to love people. There are no ifs or buts about that. That means you also love your neighbor, the poor, and even love your enemy or someone who has wronged you by displaying grace and forgiving them. It's much easier said than done but this is what is expected. Perhaps some sound advice you should take on board before you post in the future.
|
|
|
|