The Politics Thread 2016

 
Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
David Furner
Posts: 3613
Joined: July 13, 2015, 5:50 pm
Location: Middle Earth
Favourite Player:
Royce Hunt
PostPosted: August 12, 2017, 9:27 pm
Raidersfan wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote:
Raidersfan wrote:
T_R wrote:
greeneyed wrote:I'm sure all the gay people in Australia are grateful for you all trampling over their basic human rights to be treated equally under the law.


Sent from my iPhone using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk

Who is doing that?


Really what a statement that is ge.. let me repeat rights are virtually equal .. this is 2017 not 1917


Virtually equal is not equal though. What's your issue with changing the marriage act to include everyone?

It's a right to have laws apply equally. Any law that is discriminatory regardless of how insignificant you see the impacts doesn't change the fact that it is discriminatory and should therefore be overturned.


Which laws are discriminatory?

The Marriage Act's definition of marriage definitely is


Sent from my iPad using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
We have a decision. We're going to the board.

You can see that Jarrod Croker initiates the contact.
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23695
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: August 12, 2017, 9:32 pm
T_R wrote:
Manbush wrote:
Pigman wrote:I'm completely in TR's camp here
I think SSM is going to win this postal vote in a landslide and I think shortly after it will be passed. I don't think we're going to see a wave of hate speech, I don't think this plebiscite is going to have significant impact on the mental health of the gay community, and I think the wailing from the left about the cost of this is **** obscene to be frank.

Is this the best way to go about? Probably not, no. It much rather a free vote and just pass the thing but the party the country elected went in promising this method and here they are doing that very thing
It's not the best way but it's the one we've been given and 120m isn't a drop in the ocean for the Australian federal budget

On the hate speech element I guess I see too much from Lyle Shelton, One Nation supporters and the like to have as much faith as you do in that. The latest attempt is comparing their children to the stolen generation if ssm is allowed, now ignoring how insulting that is to gay couples, their children and aborigines since same sex couples can already have children it's totally irrelevant to the issue.

So you're anticipating that a few bigots will continue to be bigots if we have a postal vote.

Give it up, MB


On a much larger scale being paid for by you and I. Forgive me if I'm not looking forward to seeing members of our community and their children being vilified throughout the media, letter drops, pamphlets etc let alone out of our pocket. Shelton and his ACL are already at it and attempting to gather more troops by emailing churches, catholic bishop is insulting both the gay community and aborigines.

I'll give up when this is finally sorted.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens
Quote
User avatar
Jason Croker
Posts: 4713
Joined: March 16, 2013, 4:39 pm

Favourite Player:
George Clooney
PostPosted: August 12, 2017, 9:32 pm
^^^
So it comes down to the definition of the word MARRIAGE.

At the very least we've got agreement on that.

And that quite frankly is what this debate is about.
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11963
Joined: January 25, 2005, 9:24 pm
Location: Brisbane
Favourite Player:
Josh Hodgson
PostPosted: August 12, 2017, 9:33 pm
Is this **** still going on? Who knew that the gutless wankers would actually try to keep an election promise? First time for anything I guess.
Gina Riley: Oh, come on, John. That’s a bit old hat, the corrupt IOC delegate.
John Clarke: Old hat? Gina, in the scientific world when they see that something is happening again and again and again, repeatedly, they don’t call it old hat. They call it a pattern.
Quote
User avatar
Jason Croker
Posts: 4713
Joined: March 16, 2013, 4:39 pm

Favourite Player:
George Clooney
PostPosted: August 12, 2017, 9:35 pm
Manbush wrote:
T_R wrote:
Manbush wrote:
Pigman wrote:I'm completely in TR's camp here
I think SSM is going to win this postal vote in a landslide and I think shortly after it will be passed. I don't think we're going to see a wave of hate speech, I don't think this plebiscite is going to have significant impact on the mental health of the gay community, and I think the wailing from the left about the cost of this is **** obscene to be frank.

Is this the best way to go about? Probably not, no. It much rather a free vote and just pass the thing but the party the country elected went in promising this method and here they are doing that very thing
It's not the best way but it's the one we've been given and 120m isn't a drop in the ocean for the Australian federal budget

On the hate speech element I guess I see too much from Lyle Shelton, One Nation supporters and the like to have as much faith as you do in that. The latest attempt is comparing their children to the stolen generation if ssm is allowed, now ignoring how insulting that is to gay couples, their children and aborigines since same sex couples can already have children it's totally irrelevant to the issue.

So you're anticipating that a few bigots will continue to be bigots if we have a postal vote.

Give it up, MB


On a much larger scale being paid for by you and I. Forgive me if I'm not looking forward to seeing members of our community and their children being vilified throughout the media, letter drops, pamphlets etc let alone out of our pocket. Shelton and his ACL are already at it and attempting to gather more troops by emailing churches, catholic bishop is insulting both the gay community and aborigines.

I'll give up when this is finally sorted.


Keep it up Manbush .. some will eventually believe you.
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13263
Joined: May 20, 2007, 5:13 pm
PostPosted: August 12, 2017, 9:39 pm
Raidersfan wrote:
Manbush wrote:
T_R wrote:
Manbush wrote:
Pigman wrote:I'm completely in TR's camp here
I think SSM is going to win this postal vote in a landslide and I think shortly after it will be passed. I don't think we're going to see a wave of hate speech, I don't think this plebiscite is going to have significant impact on the mental health of the gay community, and I think the wailing from the left about the cost of this is **** obscene to be frank.

Is this the best way to go about? Probably not, no. It much rather a free vote and just pass the thing but the party the country elected went in promising this method and here they are doing that very thing
It's not the best way but it's the one we've been given and 120m isn't a drop in the ocean for the Australian federal budget

On the hate speech element I guess I see too much from Lyle Shelton, One Nation supporters and the like to have as much faith as you do in that. The latest attempt is comparing their children to the stolen generation if ssm is allowed, now ignoring how insulting that is to gay couples, their children and aborigines since same sex couples can already have children it's totally irrelevant to the issue.

So you're anticipating that a few bigots will continue to be bigots if we have a postal vote.

Give it up, MB


On a much larger scale being paid for by you and I. Forgive me if I'm not looking forward to seeing members of our community and their children being vilified throughout the media, letter drops, pamphlets etc let alone out of our pocket. Shelton and his ACL are already at it and attempting to gather more troops by emailing churches, catholic bishop is insulting both the gay community and aborigines.

I'll give up when this is finally sorted.


Keep it up Manbush .. some will eventually believe you.

Just like the bloke that stands in front of you on a Sunday hey mate??
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 13263
Joined: May 20, 2007, 5:13 pm
PostPosted: August 12, 2017, 9:40 pm
In your eyes I am complete.
Quote
User avatar
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5621
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 4:13 pm
One thing that I find interesting is the conservative side of politics quest to take a position but not be criticized for the position.

I.e. Rejecting SSM on usually the following grounds:-
1 - God says so.
2 - Think of the children, i.e. children of SS couples will be adversely effected by this change.
3 - You can't replace a mothers love.
4 - Anti Political correctness?

In my opinion, besides 4 being a bit of a stretch and dependent on the community (ie in some church communities being a same sex couple is an outright abomination, let alone the notion of ssm being legal or anything like that) thus if you are concerned that you are not in the politically correct camp on this one you should probably look at what shaped your position and whether that particular place is a welcoming arena for disagreeing and opposing views. I can think of many views, all perfectly reasonable which would have you pitchforked tarred and feathered in again that same religous conservative community. Thus, I dont have much time for this Bull.

1,2,3 in my opinion all have varying degrees of bigotry in them
merriam-webster definition (the oxford one doesn't play as well for my argument)
: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (such as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

It seems to me people are happy to hold an intolerant and bigotted point of view, but they are to weak to own that, the view is prejudiced or bigotted and they go crying as soon as it is pointed out.

On the other side of politics, who is labor kidding, they had the power for 6 odd years and did nothing with marriage equality, now in opposition they blocked a fair dinkum plebiscite when the other option was a mickey mouse postal vote. Also a bit disappointing from Nick Xenophon I always had the impression that he was a practical man.
Quote
User avatar
Ruben Wiki
Posts: 5621
Joined: August 27, 2007, 2:26 pm
Location: redfern
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 4:18 pm
Raidersfan wrote:^^^
So it comes down to the definition of the word MARRIAGE.

At the very least we've got agreement on that.

And that quite frankly is what this debate is about.

No the debate is on whether the legislation of the marriage act should be amended.

TBH this is a really stupid stupid argument. Because you believe the word married means 1 man and 1 woman (or something else) really has no relevance as to whether the community (australia) should legally allow SSM.

If you dont like SSM there is nothing stopping you from holding the view about the definition of marriage to your grave.
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 38892
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Favourite Player:
Croker, Vaughan and Fensom
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 4:36 pm
Honestly, my best advice to guys like Bay and dubby and Manbush is that if you don't like same sex marriage, then don't marry any men!!

Otherwise, let everyone else do whatever makes them happy. It literally has zero impact on you or your life
Image
2012 Golden Boogs Newbie of the Year
2013 'Nella Awards Best Punter
2013 Boogs Thread of the Year ~ The Betting Thread
2014 Boogs Matthew Elliott Award Winner
2014 Boogs some award with Hanbush
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 19866
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm

Favourite Player:
Nick Cotric
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 5:02 pm
It's really that simple isn't it?
I'm not gay so I'm not going to go and marry a bloke. You can just not do it and go on your merry way knowing people are happy and no one will ever miss or remember that the 120m used on this was even a thing
The List - K.Love, Keno, Zippy's tennis angels, LA Lakers, Noah, Boozer, Lucy's horse tips, Colts, Lucy, Kevin Proctor, Dr Zaius, TR....
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23695
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 5:38 pm
You **** stirrer Nickman I'm not gonna bite this time :lol:

You've summed it up though, it will not affect anyone negatively while making a lot of people happy. If you don't like same sex marriage don't marry someone of the same sex, no one wants to make it compulsory.

Had another funny phone complaint today over it since the company's latest tv ad has a rainbow in it, thankfully he didn't come in store as all our promotional signs do as well :lol:
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens
Quote
User avatar
Chris O'Sullivan
Posts: 901
Joined: September 13, 2010, 4:02 pm

Favourite Player:
Stone Cold Blake Austin
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 5:40 pm
The liberal party as a whole want a plebiscite so that they can legalize SSM without abandoning their far right voters - "sorry conservatives, Australia voted in favour of SSM, there's nothing we can do!". It's the only explanation I can come up with as to why they don't just have a parliamentary vote. There are obviously some far right liberal party members that legitametly don't want SSM, but if there was a conscience vote, I would've thought the majority in the LNP would vote for SSM.

Also, I recognize that a postal plebiscite is not the best way to go about this, but threats of a vote boycott are a ridiculous idea. Can you imagine if the side against SSM won the vote because those for didn't vote? By all means, challenge the postal plebisite in court, but if the courts say that the plebisite is on, those for SSM simply have to vote.
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23695
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 6:10 pm
The idea they want to protect children has become even more laughable, the Catholic Church is set to opppse recommendations that priests be forced to report child abuse details heard in confession.

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-1 ... fmredir=sm
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens
Quote
User avatar
Gary Belcher
Posts: 6320
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 6:22 pm
papabear wrote:On the other side of politics, who is labor kidding, they had the power for 6 odd years and did nothing with marriage equality, now in opposition they blocked a fair dinkum plebiscite when the other option was a mickey mouse postal vote. Also a bit disappointing from Nick Xenophon I always had the impression that he was a practical man.


That's a logical fallacy. The choice was not exclusively a proper versus postal plebiscite.

I agree that Labor's position was fairly gutless when in power. But in their defence at the time they were nominating policies for their election was a while ago now. It was a tougher sell even 7 years ago or whenever the last election they won was...
Quote

David Grant
Posts: 705
Joined: February 12, 2013, 11:11 pm

Favourite Player:
Sam Backo
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 6:36 pm
gangrenous wrote:
papabear wrote:On the other side of politics, who is labor kidding, they had the power for 6 odd years and did nothing with marriage equality, now in opposition they blocked a fair dinkum plebiscite when the other option was a mickey mouse postal vote. Also a bit disappointing from Nick Xenophon I always had the impression that he was a practical man.


That's a logical fallacy. The choice was not exclusively a proper versus postal plebiscite.

I agree that Labor's position was fairly gutless when in power. But in their defence at the time they were nominating policies for their election was a while ago now. It was a tougher sell even 7 years ago or whenever the last election they won was...


Labours actions in govt were gutless on this and many other things, but to be fair they did bring the matter to a vote in Parliament. ALP had a conscience vote, the Libs were made to vote no as a bloc by then opposition leader Abbott.It lost with some surprising no voters including Gillard.
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 13439
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 6:44 pm
Cranky Old Man wrote:
gangrenous wrote:
papabear wrote:On the other side of politics, who is labor kidding, they had the power for 6 odd years and did nothing with marriage equality, now in opposition they blocked a fair dinkum plebiscite when the other option was a mickey mouse postal vote. Also a bit disappointing from Nick Xenophon I always had the impression that he was a practical man.


That's a logical fallacy. The choice was not exclusively a proper versus postal plebiscite.

I agree that Labor's position was fairly gutless when in power. But in their defence at the time they were nominating policies for their election was a while ago now. It was a tougher sell even 7 years ago or whenever the last election they won was...


Labours actions in govt were gutless on this and many other things, but to be fair they did bring the matter to a vote in Parliament. ALP had a conscience vote, the Libs were made to vote no as a bloc by then opposition leader Abbott.It lost with some surprising no voters including Gillard.

And Penny Wong came out against it

Jeez, our politicians are pathetic, but that's a whole new level of gutless
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23695
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 6:45 pm
Opinions have been changing pretty rapidly, when I was born homosexuality was illegal throughout Australia, 22 years ago it still was in Tasmania, FMD the death penalty for sodomy was still on the books in Victoria when my parents were born, now days that's pretty hard to imagine.

Those who reminisce about the "good ole days" definitely have blinkers on.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 13439
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 6:54 pm
Manbush wrote:Opinions have been changing pretty rapidly, when I was born homosexuality was illegal throughout Australia, 22 years ago it still was in Tasmania, FMD the death penalty for sodomy was still on the books in Victoria when my parents were born, now days that's pretty hard to imagine.

Those who reminisce about the "good ole days" definitely have blinkers on.

And yet you attack the Libs for not going to a vote right now.

MB has declared himself the arbiter of precisely the right time for social change....and everyone else is out of step.

Seems to me that you've just made a strong case for a plebiscite.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23695
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 7:05 pm
Not really mate, didn't need people to vote to make homosexuality legal and surely that was an even bigger step.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 13439
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 7:06 pm
But seven years ago was too early. Seven years later will be too late. Goldilocks Manbush has declared 2017 juuuuust right.

Sent from my SM-G955F using The Greenhouse mobile app powered by Tapatalk
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23695
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 7:16 pm
Where did I say 7 years ago was too early, you really enjoy making up false arguments don't you mate. As for in 7 years yes it would be embarrassing if we as a nation are still fart assing around with it when countries we share our values with have already done it.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 13439
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 7:20 pm
The conversation was about Labor neglecting to pass the legislation.

You then said that 'opinions have been changing pretty rapidly'.

Labor was debating this 7 years ago.

If that was a random thought bubble unconnected to the rest of the conversation, I do apologise.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23695
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 7:33 pm
Yes it was just a random thought bubble in context to how we as a nation have progressed for the better.

Mate I've never been a fan of Labor and criticised the Gillard/Rudd leaderships often at the time on this forum, I've voted Liberals a lot more often. Societies attitudes and ethics towards this issue have progressed so they do see votes in it but the reasoning behind their stance is irrelevant to me, I'd prefer people doing the right thing for the wrong reason than not doing it all.

Haha with that apology so glad I deleted the abuse I had written, would only have been about the 3rd time on this forum I'd lost my cool, you can be a frustrating bastard at times
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 13439
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 7:37 pm
Manbush wrote:I'd prefer people doing the right thing for the wrong reason than not doing it all.

Haha with that apology so glad I deleted the abuse I had written, would only have been about the 3rd time on this forum I'd lost my cool, you can be a frustrating bastard at times


As long as they do it YOUR way....ie no postal votes. So people doing the right thing for the wrong reason is in, people doing the right thing for the right reason but through a process that you don't entirely agree with is out. Gotcha.

And stop whispering, man.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23695
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 7:46 pm
Mate the only reason I'm against the plebiscite or a postal vote is in support of what the majority of the LGBTQI community and health professionals want. If it was for selfish reasons I'd be all for it as it will showcase the hate of a lot of religious organisations and be another nail in their coffin, for me it would be two birds with one stone.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 13439
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 7:50 pm
Manbush wrote:Mate the only reason I'm against the plebiscite or a postal vote is in support of what the majority of the LGBTQI community and health professionals want. If it was for selfish reasons I'd be all for it as it will showcase the hate of a lot of religious organisations and be another nail in their coffin, for me it would be two birds with one stone.


As I said - you want the result, but you demand that the process that achieves that result also be YOUR way.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23695
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 7:56 pm
Not my way (as I said a plebiscite or postal would suit my agenda better) but the way the people it affects want and the health professionals want, aren't they the two groups that matter in this.
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 13439
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 8:13 pm
Manbush wrote:Not my way (as I said a plebiscite or postal would suit my agenda better) but the way the people it affects want and the health professionals want, aren't they the two groups that matter in this.



Do you read what you type?

" I don't want a plebiscite because it will unleash hate from all these groups and negatively impact the mental health of the gay community. I want the plebiscite because it will unleash hate from all these groups, which will negatively impact the mental health of the gay community, which is great because churches are bad"

:D :D :D :D :D

Honestly, the Manbush character has jumped the shark.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 8:23 pm
The Parliamentarians infringed people's human rights to start with, with their discriminatory laws. They've fixed a lot of them simply by Parliamentary vote. They should take some responsibility now to ensure that discrimination does not exist in the law. The only thing I care about is that they fix their past misdeeds now, in the least costly fashion, and eliminate the discrimination as quickly as possible. I don't care if they turf out the word marriage altogether from the law. But the laws should not discriminate.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 23695
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 8:29 pm
You're twisting it TR, I don't want hate unleasehed for the communities sake even though that hate would suit my stance on other issues, my stance can wait as it's occurring naturally anywayb
"My own opinion is enough for me and I claim the right to have it defended against any consensus, any majority, anywhere, any place, any time, and anyone who disagrees with this can pick a number, get in line and kiss my ass" Christopher Hitchens
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 13439
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 8:31 pm
greeneyed wrote:The Parliamentarians infringed people's human rights to start with, with their discriminatory laws. They've fixed a lot of them simply by Parliamentary vote. They should take some responsibility now to ensure that discrimination does not exist in the law. The only thing I care about is that they fix their past misdeeds now, in the least costly fashion, and eliminate the discrimination as quickly as possible. I don't care if they turf out the word marriage altogether from the law. But the laws should not discriminate.



I completely concur, and join you in demanding the immediate resignation of those miscreants responsible for the Marriage Act (1753), upon which our laws are based. Lord Hardwicke should frankly be ashamed of himself.

But I'm pleased that we all seem to agree that the Libs have acted appropriately in moving to fix past misdeeds in the least costly fashion available and we all look forward to this discriminatory law being changed as quickly as possible. And I do, personally, care if they turf the word marriage. If you're not going to discriminate, then it's best not to discriminate at all, even in nomenclature.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 13439
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 8:37 pm
Manbush wrote:You're twisting it TR, I don't want hate unleasehed for the communities sake even though that hate would suit my stance on other issues, my stance can wait as it's occurring naturally anywayb


No doubt about it, you're a humanitarian. I'm honestly surprised you managed to find time from your full time job of leading the Muslims out of the dark.

Just out of interest, is there any credible hate being unleashed on the gay community? Quite frankly, I'd say that the level of support for this legislation is absolutely overwhelming.

There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 112095
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 8:45 pm
T_R wrote:
greeneyed wrote:The Parliamentarians infringed people's human rights to start with, with their discriminatory laws. They've fixed a lot of them simply by Parliamentary vote. They should take some responsibility now to ensure that discrimination does not exist in the law. The only thing I care about is that they fix their past misdeeds now, in the least costly fashion, and eliminate the discrimination as quickly as possible. I don't care if they turf out the word marriage altogether from the law. But the laws should not discriminate.



I completely concur, and join you in demanding the immediate resignation of those miscreants responsible for the Marriage Act (1753), upon which our laws are based. Lord Hardwicke should frankly be ashamed of himself.

But I'm pleased that we all seem to agree that the Libs have acted appropriately in moving to fix past misdeeds in the least costly fashion available and we all look forward to this discriminatory law being changed as quickly as possible. And I do, personally, care if they turf the word marriage. If you're not going to discriminate, then it's best not to discriminate at all, even in nomenclature.


They're clearly not moving in the least costly fashion and the most rapid fashion possible.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 13439
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: August 14, 2017, 8:46 pm
greeneyed wrote:
T_R wrote:
greeneyed wrote:The Parliamentarians infringed people's human rights to start with, with their discriminatory laws. They've fixed a lot of them simply by Parliamentary vote. They should take some responsibility now to ensure that discrimination does not exist in the law. The only thing I care about is that they fix their past misdeeds now, in the least costly fashion, and eliminate the discrimination as quickly as possible. I don't care if they turf out the word marriage altogether from the law. But the laws should not discriminate.



I completely concur, and join you in demanding the immediate resignation of those miscreants responsible for the Marriage Act (1753), upon which our laws are based. Lord Hardwicke should frankly be ashamed of himself.

But I'm pleased that we all seem to agree that the Libs have acted appropriately in moving to fix past misdeeds in the least costly fashion available and we all look forward to this discriminatory law being changed as quickly as possible. And I do, personally, care if they turf the word marriage. If you're not going to discriminate, then it's best not to discriminate at all, even in nomenclature.


They're clearly not moving in the least costly fashion and the most rapid fashion possible.


If you mean by the manner that is most likely to return a positive result in the minimum of time, I disagree.
Image

Son, we live in a world that has forums, and those forums have to be guarded by Mods. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Nickman? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Lucy, and you curse GE. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know -- that GE’s moderation, while tragic, probably saved lives; and my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, keeps threads on track and under the appropriately sized, highlighted green headings.
You want moderation because deep down in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that forum -- you need me on that forum. We use words like "stay on topic," "use the appropriate forum," "please delete." We use these words as the backbone of a life spent defending something. You use them as a punch line. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very moderation that I provide and then questions the manner in which I provide it. I would rather that you just said "thank you" and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you get a green handle and edit a post. Either way, I don't give a DAMN what you think about moderation.
Quote
PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests