|
macktheknife
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
Joffa wrote:I thought we were in a state of budgetary crisis? Sure, because when Abbott wins he'll 'lead us out' of this imaginary crisis and be lauded on the front pages of the news limited press for doing so.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
thupercoach
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 8.3K,
Visits: 0
|
The real question is - Shorten? Albanese? Combet? Gillard? Carr?
|
|
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
i wonder if KRUDD and the ALP have such vision for Australia's future why are they recycling Carr,Beatie,Keating,Hawke ETC????
|
|
|
|
|
StiflersMom
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 12K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:i wonder if KRUDD and the ALP have such vision for Australia's future why are they recycling Carr,Beatie,Keating,Hawke ETC???? Reminding us they once had leaders.
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
bovs wrote:StiflersMom wrote:After that extraordinary outburst I've decided if he has someone in my seat standing for the house of Reps, then I'm voting 1 Clive and Sex party for the senate. But if you are thinking about voting for Clive, you really should at least consider the article to which he was referring in that interview because it paints a pretty ugly picture. "Does running a viable soccer club on the Gold Coast from profitability to extinction within three years fill you with confidence in his business skills?"Not sure I would refer to GCU as a "viable soccer club" at any stage of its existence.
|
|
|
|
|
bovs
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
batfink wrote:i wonder if KRUDD and the ALP have such vision for Australia's future why are they recycling Carr,Beatie,Keating,Hawke ETC???? Carr came in under Gillard... Beattie was an attempt to win over Qld that didn't work... Keating and Hawke come out for exactly the same reason that Howard and Costello are used by the Libs - because as time passes, politicians get remembered more fondly and creates links between the past and present versions of the party brand (stupid for ALP in my opinion because the ALP brand is more tarnished than the actual current politicians in the ALP, whereas the Liberal brand is much stronger than the actual current politicians in the LNP). Shorten will *surely* be the next ALP leader. Albo is too 'matey' and anyone else who has been a former key player in the public eye (Carr, Beattie, Swan) just won't give them the clean slate they'll need after they get smashed (which is what I expect on Sunday... I'm guessing at best 55 seats out of 150). Combet, Gillard and possibly even Beattie won't actually be part of the next government so won't be opposition leader.
|
|
|
|
|
bovs
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 1.7K,
Visits: 0
|
notorganic wrote:bovs wrote:StiflersMom wrote:After that extraordinary outburst I've decided if he has someone in my seat standing for the house of Reps, then I'm voting 1 Clive and Sex party for the senate. But if you are thinking about voting for Clive, you really should at least consider the article to which he was referring in that interview because it paints a pretty ugly picture. "Does running a viable soccer club on the Gold Coast from profitability to extinction within three years fill you with confidence in his business skills?"Not sure I would refer to GCU as a "viable soccer club" at any stage of its existence. I did raise my eyebrow at that bit... I guess you could take it as "it was viable for the Gold Coast to have a football team, but after Clive Palmer's efforts it isn't anymore". Does Clive's "football watchdog" federation whatever it was called still exist?
|
|
|
|
|
batfink
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 9.9K,
Visits: 0
|
StiflersMom wrote:batfink wrote:i wonder if KRUDD and the ALP have such vision for Australia's future why are they recycling Carr,Beatie,Keating,Hawke ETC???? Reminding us they once had leaders. ;) ;)
|
|
|
|
|
lukerobinho
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 10K,
Visits: 0
|
Are the Libs planning an internet filter ? Quote:Australian opposition vows to implement internet filter by default
A Liberal National government in Australia would adopt the opt-out UK approach to filtering the internet for all Australians.
The policy comes less than 41 hours before polls open for voting in the federal election where the Coalition is currently expected to win. It is also almost a year after the Labor government abandoned its plans for mandatory internet filtering, and three years after the Coalition announced that it would not support a policy for mandatory internet filtering.
The announcement, buried in an AU$10 million online safety policy published online today (PDF) announces that under a Tony Abbott government, Australians would have "adult content" filters installed on their phone services and fixed internet services unless they opt out.
"We will work with mobile phone companies (such as Telstra, Optus, Vodafone, and their resellers) to develop online safety standards for smartphones and other devices with mobile network connectivity such as tablets, applicable to their use by children in two age groups: Children up to the age of 12 years and teenagers," the policy states.
"As has recently been achieved in the UK, we expect these standards will involve mobile phone operators installing adult content filters on phones which will be switched on as the default unless the customer proves he or she is at least 18 years of age.
"The Coalition will work with internet service providers (which provide fixed-line broadband services to the home) to develop online safety standards for those services, recognising that they are very often accessed by children.
"As has recently been achieved in the UK, we expect these standards will involve the major internet service providers providing home network filters for all new home broadband services, which will be switched on as the default unless the customer specifies otherwise."
Pre-empting the expected criticism of the Coalition's backflip on internet filtering, the party has said that the filtering proposal is about empowering parents.
"This is a very different approach to the discredited compulsory filter proposal championed by the Rudd-Gillard government, which was abandoned as unworkable," the policy states.
"The Coalition's approach aims to empower parents — by giving them the choice of whether or not to operate a filter at home, [and] by establishing the default setting as one which provides maximum protection."
The Coalition has not indicated whether it yet has the support of any of the major ISPs, unlike UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who had secured the support of the UK internet providers before making the announcement.
As expected, the Coalition has indicated that it will introduce a Children's E-Safety Commissioner to seek to remove harmful material from social media platforms.
The Coalition also announced that cyberbullying could potentially become a criminal offence. http://www.zdnet.com/au/australian-opposition-vows-to-implement-internet-filter-by-default-7000020270/
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
lukerobinho wrote:Are the Libs planning an internet filter ? Quote:Australian opposition vows to implement internet filter by default
A Liberal National government in Australia would adopt the opt-out UK approach to filtering the internet for all Australians.
The policy comes less than 41 hours before polls open for voting in the federal election where the Coalition is currently expected to win. It is also almost a year after the Labor government abandoned its plans for mandatory internet filtering, and three years after the Coalition announced that it would not support a policy for mandatory internet filtering.
The announcement, buried in an AU$10 million online safety policy published online today (PDF) announces that under a Tony Abbott government, Australians would have "adult content" filters installed on their phone services and fixed internet services unless they opt out.
"We will work with mobile phone companies (such as Telstra, Optus, Vodafone, and their resellers) to develop online safety standards for smartphones and other devices with mobile network connectivity such as tablets, applicable to their use by children in two age groups: Children up to the age of 12 years and teenagers," the policy states.
"As has recently been achieved in the UK, we expect these standards will involve mobile phone operators installing adult content filters on phones which will be switched on as the default unless the customer proves he or she is at least 18 years of age.
"The Coalition will work with internet service providers (which provide fixed-line broadband services to the home) to develop online safety standards for those services, recognising that they are very often accessed by children.
"As has recently been achieved in the UK, we expect these standards will involve the major internet service providers providing home network filters for all new home broadband services, which will be switched on as the default unless the customer specifies otherwise."
Pre-empting the expected criticism of the Coalition's backflip on internet filtering, the party has said that the filtering proposal is about empowering parents.
"This is a very different approach to the discredited compulsory filter proposal championed by the Rudd-Gillard government, which was abandoned as unworkable," the policy states.
"The Coalition's approach aims to empower parents — by giving them the choice of whether or not to operate a filter at home, [and] by establishing the default setting as one which provides maximum protection."
The Coalition has not indicated whether it yet has the support of any of the major ISPs, unlike UK Prime Minister David Cameron, who had secured the support of the UK internet providers before making the announcement.
As expected, the Coalition has indicated that it will introduce a Children's E-Safety Commissioner to seek to remove harmful material from social media platforms.
The Coalition also announced that cyberbullying could potentially become a criminal offence. http://www.zdnet.com/au/australian-opposition-vows-to-implement-internet-filter-by-default-7000020270/ 
|
|
|
|
|
paladisious
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 39K,
Visits: 0
|
You won't be able to download anything once Abbot gets in anyway so they may as well.
|
|
|
|
|
Glory Recruit
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 13K,
Visits: 0
|
grazorblade wrote:Iridium1010 wrote:Just out of curiosity does the bible actually say slavery is a natural condition? lol no. The old testament had a system where if someone owed you a debt and had no other means to repay it they could be a slave for a maximum of seven years. It is unrecognizable from modern slavery where you hunt and bash people, kidnap them and keep them for life. Also there were no interest on debts so there was no predatory lending and it would have been a big deal to not pay off a debt. Thats not to say that there aren't aspects of this that wouldn't sit uncomfortably with modern society. You were allowed to beat a slave if they didn't work for you. It should also be pointed out that the old testament was a system of punishment toward people who did the wrong thing. You could for example get stoned to death for saying something negative about your parents. The new testament says that the old testament is a tutorial showing that we need grace (and not a system of punishing sinners). When Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he was not only arguing the moral need for mercy but also the practical need. Punishing sinners fairly (where fairly is defined by the old testament law) would cause the human race to go extinct. If they believed in the law then not one of them should have been alive to stone the woman to death. There are also many laws in the old testament about treating your slaves well. I should point out that I have taken a very literal reading of the old testaments talk on slavery. Some Christians say that God was doing "harm minimization" in a world where slavery was everywhere and unavoidable and that the law only needed to be strict enough to show everyone as guilty. Later in Jeremiah we are told that God was mad with Israel because they were charging interest (which allows for predatory loaning) and keeping slaves indefinitely. The king reversed this custom of keeping slaves indefinitely and Jeremiah said that God is no longer going to destroy israel (despite this being the only good thing the king did that is recorded). The king changed his mind again and to keep a long story short God threatened to lay the smack down on him. This is strong evidence that the old testament is against slavery as it is usually defined. Other mentions of slavery in the old testament is God having compassion on israel for being israel's slaves and freeing them. Also there are the gideonites who were kept as slaves though God never endorsed this and they presumably would have had to free them on the year of jubilee (not sure if they did in practice or not) As for the new testament there are many verses about slaves being good to their masters however saying this endorses slavery is like saying "love your enemies" is a verse condoning your enemies. In philemon there is a story of an escaped slave and paul writing to his master to basically say "well you may have lost a slave but look on the bright side, you have gained a brother. Take him back as a brother" (slight paraphrase lol). Also in the new testament people are told "if you get a chance for freedom take it" Finally it should be pointed out the historical effect the Bible has had on the issue of slavery. William wilberforce was motivated by the Bible, the author of amazing grace was a slave trader then eventually quit after converting (and writing the song). The north in the civil war had as their battle song the need to die for slaves like Jesus died for us (whereas the south's battle song had no mention of God "to arms for dixie) and the african american church drew inspiration from the Bible where they saw "a God who sided with the slaves". Finally in the modern world where slavery is at an all time high Christians are very involved in the abolition of slavery. In fact it is barely an exageration to say they are almost alone in this fight in terms of involvement Thanks for the long reply:), interesting.
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
grazorblade wrote:Iridium1010 wrote:Just out of curiosity does the bible actually say slavery is a natural condition? lol no. The old testament had a system where if someone owed you a debt and had no other means to repay it they could be a slave for a maximum of seven years. It is unrecognizable from modern slavery where you hunt and bash people, kidnap them and keep them for life. Also there were no interest on debts so there was no predatory lending and it would have been a big deal to not pay off a debt. Thats not to say that there aren't aspects of this that wouldn't sit uncomfortably with modern society. You were allowed to beat a slave if they didn't work for you. It should also be pointed out that the old testament was a system of punishment toward people who did the wrong thing. You could for example get stoned to death for saying something negative about your parents. The new testament says that the old testament is a tutorial showing that we need grace (and not a system of punishing sinners). When Jesus said "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" he was not only arguing the moral need for mercy but also the practical need. Punishing sinners fairly (where fairly is defined by the old testament law) would cause the human race to go extinct. If they believed in the law then not one of them should have been alive to stone the woman to death. There are also many laws in the old testament about treating your slaves well. I should point out that I have taken a very literal reading of the old testaments talk on slavery. Some Christians say that God was doing "harm minimization" in a world where slavery was everywhere and unavoidable and that the law only needed to be strict enough to show everyone as guilty. Later in Jeremiah we are told that God was mad with Israel because they were charging interest (which allows for predatory loaning) and keeping slaves indefinitely. The king reversed this custom of keeping slaves indefinitely and Jeremiah said that God is no longer going to destroy israel (despite this being the only good thing the king did that is recorded). The king changed his mind again and to keep a long story short God threatened to lay the smack down on him. This is strong evidence that the old testament is against slavery as it is usually defined. Other mentions of slavery in the old testament is God having compassion on israel for being israel's slaves and freeing them. Also there are the gideonites who were kept as slaves though God never endorsed this and they presumably would have had to free them on the year of jubilee (not sure if they did in practice or not) As for the new testament there are many verses about slaves being good to their masters however saying this endorses slavery is like saying "love your enemies" is a verse condoning your enemies. In philemon there is a story of an escaped slave and paul writing to his master to basically say "well you may have lost a slave but look on the bright side, you have gained a brother. Take him back as a brother" (slight paraphrase lol). Also in the new testament people are told "if you get a chance for freedom take it" Finally it should be pointed out the historical effect the Bible has had on the issue of slavery. William wilberforce was motivated by the Bible, the author of amazing grace was a slave trader then eventually quit after converting (and writing the song). The north in the civil war had as their battle song the need to die for slaves like Jesus died for us (whereas the south's battle song had no mention of God "to arms for dixie) and the african american church drew inspiration from the Bible where they saw "a God who sided with the slaves". Finally in the modern world where slavery is at an all time high Christians are very involved in the abolition of slavery. In fact it is barely an exageration to say they are almost alone in this fight in terms of involvement Using indentured service as a substitute for Biblical Slavery is special pleading retardery of epic proportions, but that particular refutation is not for this thread.
|
|
|
|
|
macktheknife
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
No surprises!
(except slashing foreign aid and introducing an internet filter)
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Despite being protected by the constitution, the gentleman who created the "don't be a fucking idiot" website has been contacted by the Liberal party and allegedly received a number of threats regarding his career and safety. This is the party you're going to elect on Saturday.
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]rJ9y1c73-IM&desktop[/youtube]
[youtube]QxwkbkXGPdM&feature[/youtube]
Edited by Joffa: 5/9/2013 07:37:02 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]h1EXbRSmnmU&feature[/youtube]
[youtube]eACa-oSCEqU&feature[/youtube]
Edited by Joffa: 5/9/2013 07:40:01 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]vDXtT8RCui8[/youtube]
[youtube]vwQxaeYQYiE[/youtube]
Edited by Joffa: 5/9/2013 07:41:33 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]AgoYbAcWq9A&feature[/youtube]
[youtube]bPkUykcGM9o&feature[/youtube]
Edited by Joffa: 5/9/2013 07:45:39 PM
|
|
|
|
|
Heineken
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 49K,
Visits: 0
|
WOLLONGONG WOLVES FOR A-LEAGUE EXPANSION!
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]CiekYLkMyv8&feature[/youtube]
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
Joffa wrote:[youtube]AgoYbAcWq9A&feature[/youtube]
[youtube]bPkUykcGM9o&feature[/youtube]
Edited by Joffa: 5/9/2013 07:45:39 PM Tony Abbott claims the carbon and mining taxes cost the mining industry 45,000 jobs, yet the mining industry actually increased employment by 49,000. Oh snap!
|
|
|
|
|
notorganic
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 21K,
Visits: 0
|
macktheknife wrote:No surprises!
(except slashing foreign aid and introducing an internet filter) No wonder they held onto them for so long. You've been had, Australia, and the vindication of being correct is no consolation for the wave of destruction coming.
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
[youtube]1L66KhP0jYg[/youtube]
[youtube]xwyIas3MIaM&feature[/youtube]
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
macktheknife
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 16K,
Visits: 0
|
Whoops, false alarm.
The policy where they clearly introduce a mandatory (but 'opt-out') internet filter wasn't actually their plan.
Their plan was actually "we encourage ISP's to install their own filters and offer them to parents."
Wow. I'm glad that was clarified.
It's not as if people might be worried when a party releases a policy then back-flips on it, while somehow pretending that the original policy never existed, and here is this other policy which has zero in common with the last policy, and we're supposed to believe that either they just happened to make a simple error by releasing a completely different policy to their actual policy.
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
Coalition costings: we finally get them and they're just political fluff Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb gave us a list of numbers but no explanation of how they add up It would be funny if it wasn’t so serious. After three years of wailing and moaning about waste and budget emergencies and crises and Armageddon, the Liberal party today released its “costings”. And what is the upshot of all their attacks on waste and mismanagement? Well, they predict their budget bottom line will be $6bn better off over the forward estimates (i.e. over four years). Six billion dollars over four years. Or, given the total revenue over that time will be about $1,657bn, that’s about 0.36% of the budget over those years. Not a lot of room for error. But they were about attacking waste. There was oodles of it, don’t you know. So how did they end up $6bn better off? Well, today Joe Hockey and Andrew Robb, in a laughable 22-minute press conference, announced they will be cutting the growth of the foreign aid budget by $4.5bn, rephasing the water buyback scheme from over four years to over six years (a saving of $650m over four years) and a further 0.25% efficiency dividend for the public service to get $428m. Those three measures account for 92% of the improvement of the Liberal party’s budget bottom line. Talk about taking the tough choices. Cutting the growth in foreign aid. Who knew that was the biggest waste in government spending! Hockey today tried to sell the line that the cut to the foreign aid budget was to pay for infrastructure. You can believe that if you want, but he might as well have said he was cutting it to help pay for their paid parental leave scheme. Remember, their scheme costs about $6.4bn more than the current system, so the extra cuts announced today pretty much make up that difference. Hockey, for all his talk on ending the age of entitlement, has pledged to reverse the changes to the fringe benefit tax, which would have added $1.795bn to the budget. I guess people claiming their cars as a tax dodge is an entitlement that doesn’t need to end just yet. The shorter version of the costings released today is that all the real “tough” (i.e. politically tough) cuts will be in the post-election “commission of audit”. According to Hockey, “the commission of audit is focused on getting rid of the waste and having a more efficient public sector”. This morning on ABC’s AM, Tony Abbott was asked if he would proceed with further cuts in government spending “before seeking a mandate”. He replied: “Where we can do government better it would be silly of us not to, but we won’t do anything that’s inconsistent with our mandate, we won’t do anything that is a breach of faith with the public.” Given both Abbott and Hockey have talked long and hard about “getting rid of the waste”, they will probably claim they have a mandate to cut anything their commission of audit recommends as being “waste”. Rather surprisingly, given it is such a key policy, this morning Abbott revealed he hasn’t even decided who will head the commission. So today we were told to take on faith what will happen from that audit process. I would be prepared to do that if their actual costings, released today, did not also require such faith. Hockey and Robb said today, “The Coalition has released over 700 pages of detailed policy documents ... and released the great bulk of its savings (around 75%) on Wednesday last week, a full 10 days before the end of the campaign.” But that is just sales talk. The “detailed policy documents” are mostly political fluff with some numbers but little explanation of how the numbers were arrived at. Today we got an eight page document with lots of numbers but no explanation of the assumptions and parameters of how those numbers were reached. There is no doubt that these numbers do add up. There are no big black holes. I have no doubt the parliamentary budget office has correctly estimated the final numbers (although Direct Action, the border protection policy and the alternative NBN were not costed by the PBO.) But we have no idea of what assumptions were used or some of the requirements around the policy. Last week, the ALP released its costing documents for the cutting of the public service by 20,000, which claimed it would save $4.3bn over the forward estimates. The Liberal party’s policy to cut the public service by just 12,000 is, however, expected to save $5.2bn. One difference between the two policies is that the LNP’s cuts start in 2013-14, whereas the ALP’s only begin in 2014-15. But we still don’t really know why the figures are so different. Any detail which would provide you with the ability to make a learned assumption of the validity of the policies is absent. All we have today is a list of numbers. No detail. Three years ago, when the Liberal party released their “costings” numbers, I asked a Fairfax economics journalist what he thought. Back then he replied, “Costings just one line per item – no assumptions, no reasoning. Treasury and Finance would have provided a touch more.” You could say exactly the same this time around. We’ve been played for mugs. Sure the numbers add up, but we don’t know why, we don’t know how. And that is why nothing has changed. We're still waiting: http://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2013/sep/05/coalition-costings-political-fluff
|
|
|
|
|
afromanGT
|
|
Group: Forum Members
Posts: 77K,
Visits: 0
|
Quote:The policy where they clearly introduce a mandatory (but 'opt-out') internet filter wasn't actually their plan.
Their plan was actually "we encourage ISP's to install their own filters and offer them to parents."
Wow. I'm glad that was clarified. Release policy. 3 hours later, backflip on it. This is the party people are voting into office on Saturday. Fuck me.
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
afromanGT wrote:Quote:The policy where they clearly introduce a mandatory (but 'opt-out') internet filter wasn't actually their plan.
Their plan was actually "we encourage ISP's to install their own filters and offer them to parents."
Wow. I'm glad that was clarified. Release policy. 3 hours later, backflip on it. This is the party people are voting into office on Saturday. Fuck me. They've only had three years....
|
|
|
|
|
Joffa
|
|
Group: Moderators
Posts: 66K,
Visits: 0
|
Outburst a pointer to Labor fall ANDREW BOLT HERALD SUN SEPTEMBER 05, 2013 12:00AM 56 PM clashes with pastor over gay marriage LABOR won't win another election unless it learns from Kevin Rudd's astonishing performance on Monday's Q&A. Want to understand Labor's fall? Then watch the Prime Minister abuse a pastor for holding an opinion on same-sex marriage which Rudd shared only four months ago. That Rudd also trashed the Bible - holy book of the faith he ostentatiously professes - made him seem even more cynical and unprincipled. What a metaphor for Labor's six years in office. Matt Prater, a New Hope Church pastor and Christian broadcaster, was in the ABC's Q&A audience and asked Rudd about his decision in May to support same-sex marriage. Said Prater: "Most of the listeners and callers we have had in our radio station have been saying they won't be voting for you because . . . you seem to keep chopping and changing your beliefs just to get a popular vote with regards to things like marriage." Rudd's reply was outrageous. He immediately painted Prater as a gay-hating bigot: "[People] are gay if they are born gay . . . The idea that this is somehow an abnormal condition is just wrong . . . "If your starting point is that homosexuality is abnormal - I don't know if that's your view." Prater, who'd said no such thing, said his real objection to same sex marriage was that the Bible defined marriage as between a man and a woman. "I'm just curious for you, Kevin, if you call yourself a Christian, why don't you believe the words of Jesus in the Bible?" But having already slimed the pastor, Rudd, who likes to pose in front of his church, slimed his faith. "Well, mate," he sneered. "If I was going to have that view, the Bible also says that slavery is a natural condition." But the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, Glenn Davies, says Rudd "misquoted the Bible" and was "profoundly wrong". Aristotle, not the Bible, defined slavery as a natural condition. As Canon Sandy Grant, senior minister at Wollongong's St Michael's Anglican Cathedral, pointed out, the Bible actually ranks "slave traders" among "the ungodly and sinful". Grant added: "I am appalled at how this national leader . . . misrepresented the Holy Book of the faith he confesses on its teaching on one matter (slavery) to avoid its teaching on another matter (of marriage) . . ." But the Left-leaning Q&A audience applauded Rudd wildly for abusing the pastor and Christianity and the ABC's clip went viral, watched 330,000 times.In fact, Rudd's rant perfectly illustrated how Labor has failed: how it confuses abuse with persuasion, Twitter for the public, fashion for substance. Note how Rudd repeatedly made the pastor seem a bigot for holding an opinion Rudd himself held until last May. In fact, Rudd used to argue - just like the pastor - "marriage is between a man and woman" and "it's just been our traditional, continuing view". Was he then a gay-hater? But with a convert's zeal, Rudd showed no respect for the opinion he used to hold or for the pastor. He sought to win an argument by bullying, not persuading. Hasn't that been Labor's way? To denigrate people for holding opinions Labor itself once held or has since adopted? Remember how Labor abused as "racists" those of us warning its lax border laws were luring boat people here? See how Labor has since decided, too late, its laws were indeed too soft? Remember how Labor branded as "misogynists" those of us warning Julia Gillard was incompetent, preaching division and hatred? See how Labor has since admitted Gillard was too divisive? Remember how Labor vilified as "deniers" those of us warning the carbon tax was a useless fix to a global warming that's paused? Remember how we were abused, but never answered? This is the most important lesson from Rudd's attack. Given the chance to persuade even a fellow Christian, Rudd abused him instead and insulted his faith. He made an enemy of Christians who could have been his allies. "I thought he was a bit rough," Prater later told The Australian. "I was a bit shocked because I feel we have to have a reasonable rational discussion about this." Yet Rudd's camp thought this his finest moment, wife Therese Rein retweeting, "You were bloody brilliant tonight Kevin". No, he wasn't. And until Labor realises why, it's finished. http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/opinion/outburst-a-pointer-to-labor-fall/story-fnj45fvb-1226710915894
|
|
|
|