The Politics Thread 2017

 
Discuss all the events of the day

Moderator: GH Moderators

User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 114377
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: October 6, 2017, 7:02 pm
Pigman wrote:http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/the-double-standards-of-no-voters-is-astounding/news-story/f1f40b1847ac6705ae689841d9f503da

Spot
**** on


So now we know why every second ad on TV is for the No vote. They are being funded by foreign interests... right wing churches in the USA.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24106
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: October 7, 2017, 7:28 am
Not at all surprising, they love pushing their anti gay rhetoric around the world, it was evangelical Americans that also helped Uganda draft their "gay bill" which was designed to make homosexuality punishable by death.
"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
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24106
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: October 7, 2017, 8:11 am
Champions Of 'Religious Freedom' Should Be Careful What They Pray For

By invoking a supposed threat to religious freedom, the scare campaign against same-sex marriage illuminates a common misunderstanding of what the term means -- highlighting how it has become a proxy for religious privilege, used to shield a particular subset of traditionalist beliefs. The same beliefs held by John Howard, the Australian Christian Lobby, Tony Abbott and conservative pundits such as Paul Kelly.

They should be careful what they wish for, because a wider understanding of religious freedom would threaten the many privileges faith groups continue to enjoy in this country. That's why Christian groups have opposed all new laws aimed at assuring religious freedom since 1980. By trading on an historical respect for faith, but seeking to protect only their own narrow range of beliefs, they risk eroding that respect even further.

Religious freedom cannot mean that one set of beliefs ought to take precedence over another, or that religious ideas should trump nonreligious ideas.

Read more http://m.huffingtonpost.com.au/hugh-har ... u-homepage
"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
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24106
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: October 7, 2017, 8:19 am
A far right campaigner has told the media he's setting a trap for yes voters this weekend :lol:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-ma ... m=Facebook

What's the bet if they don't get the reaction they want they'll plant one.
"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
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24106
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: October 9, 2017, 9:46 pm
greeneyed wrote:
Pigman wrote:http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/rendezview/the-double-standards-of-no-voters-is-astounding/news-story/f1f40b1847ac6705ae689841d9f503da

Spot
**** on


So now we know why every second ad on TV is for the No vote. They are being funded by foreign interests... right wing churches in the USA.

And a hefty $1 million from the Sydney Anglican diocese

https://www.buzzfeed.com/lanesainty/syd ... .tnPkrvKVV
"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
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11950
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Location: Canberra :(
Favourite Player:
Brett Mullins
PostPosted: October 15, 2017, 1:01 pm
Larry Flynt offering $10Million for anyone with evidence that leads to Trump's impeachment.
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12413
Joined: January 25, 2005, 9:24 pm
Location: Brisbane
Favourite Player:
Josh Hodgson
PostPosted: October 15, 2017, 1:38 pm
Should make it $1b, then he might dob himself in!
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
Don Furner
Posts: 27466
Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
Location: The Ponds.
Favourite Player:
Mal Meninga
PostPosted: October 16, 2017, 9:23 am
TR, what are your thoughts on nuclear power?

Is it considered an affordable and reliable source of energy in Japan?
Image
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 20906
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm

Favourite Player:
Nick Cotric
PostPosted: October 16, 2017, 10:03 am
Green eyed Mick wrote:Larry Flynt offering $10Million for anyone with evidence that leads to Trump's impeachment.


That's pretty good cash.
Could Bannon could use that sort of money?
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
Laurie Daley
Posts: 12413
Joined: January 25, 2005, 9:24 pm
Location: Brisbane
Favourite Player:
Josh Hodgson
PostPosted: October 16, 2017, 2:07 pm
Pigman wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote:Larry Flynt offering $10Million for anyone with evidence that leads to Trump's impeachment.


That's pretty good cash.
Could Bannon could use that sort of money?
I don't think he'd say no to it, but the counter offer might also be attractive.
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
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24106
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: October 16, 2017, 6:06 pm
Pigman wrote:
Green eyed Mick wrote:Larry Flynt offering $10Million for anyone with evidence that leads to Trump's impeachment.


That's pretty good cash.
Could Bannon could use that sort of money?

Problem is he's surrounded himself with people who'd consider that small change, though can't help but think of this quote, "Nobody is more covetous and greedy than those who already have far too much," so there is hope.
"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
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24106
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: October 20, 2017, 11:40 am
Well done Victoria, voted to approve voluntary euthanasia :clap:

https://www.theguardian.com/society/201 ... MP=soc_567
"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: 6783
Joined: May 12, 2007, 10:42 pm
PostPosted: October 20, 2017, 12:04 pm
Good stuff
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11950
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Location: Canberra :(
Favourite Player:
Brett Mullins
PostPosted: October 20, 2017, 3:26 pm
Time for the ACT government to move on the issue.
Quote
User avatar
John Ferguson
Posts: 2580
Joined: February 2, 2007, 12:14 pm
PostPosted: October 20, 2017, 4:59 pm
Green eyed Mick wrote:Time for the ACT government to move on the issue.


I volunteer a few posters on this site as the first we Euthanise.

Or is that not how it works?
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 24106
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: October 25, 2017, 8:00 am
TR curious on your thoughts on Saudi Prince claiming he wants to return them to moderate Muslim nation, is it lip sercice, achievable or do the clerics just wield too much power?
"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: 14030
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: October 25, 2017, 1:11 pm
Manbush wrote:TR curious on your thoughts on Saudi Prince claiming he wants to return them to moderate Muslim nation, is it lip sercice, achievable or do the clerics just wield too much power?

I've had this conversation with you before.
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: 20906
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm

Favourite Player:
Nick Cotric
PostPosted: October 25, 2017, 1:50 pm
I don’t believe that you have. It’s about damn time you did

So @T_R , please continue

MichaelJacksonPopcorn.gif
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
Don Furner
Posts: 14030
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: October 26, 2017, 3:14 pm
Pigman wrote:I don’t believe that you have. It’s about damn time you did

So @T_R , please continue

MichaelJacksonPopcorn.gif



Absolutely no point. It is an incredibly nuanced situation, and we have seen over and over again that there are no shades of grey in Manbushand.
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
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11950
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Location: Canberra :(
Favourite Player:
Brett Mullins
PostPosted: October 26, 2017, 3:49 pm
Manbush wrote:TR curious on your thoughts on Saudi Prince claiming he wants to return them to moderate Muslim nation, is it lip sercice, achievable or do the clerics just wield too much power?


I can offer you my uninformed opinion.

When the **** falls out of oil, the whole region is ****ed.
Quote
User avatar
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11950
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Location: Canberra :(
Favourite Player:
Brett Mullins
PostPosted: October 26, 2017, 6:44 pm
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4392651/
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 20906
Joined: June 18, 2013, 4:31 pm

Favourite Player:
Nick Cotric
PostPosted: October 26, 2017, 6:47 pm
T_R wrote:
Pigman wrote:I don’t believe that you have. It’s about damn time you did

So @T_R , please continue

MichaelJacksonPopcorn.gif



Absolutely no point. It is an incredibly nuanced situation, and we have seen over and over again that there are no shades of grey in Manbushand.


I’m not the seeing the issue from my POV

Please, if you could kick start us off here by offering your thoughts the Saudi prince wanting to move to more moderate Muslim nation?

Do the clerics have too much power?
Is this lip services?

I want answers dammit and more than that I want Manbush’s rebuttal
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
Don Furner
Posts: 27466
Joined: May 16, 2006, 12:14 pm
Location: The Ponds.
Favourite Player:
Mal Meninga
PostPosted: October 26, 2017, 8:16 pm
T_R wrote:
Pigman wrote:I don’t believe that you have. It’s about damn time you did

So @T_R , please continue

MichaelJacksonPopcorn.gif



Absolutely no point. It is an incredibly nuanced situation, and we have seen over and over again that there are no shades of grey in Manbushand.

I'd argue its all grey. Or rainbows. Who knows what goes on over there
Image
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 14030
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: October 27, 2017, 3:09 am
Manbush wrote:TR curious on your thoughts on Saudi Prince claiming he wants to return them to moderate Muslim nation, is it lip sercice, achievable or do the clerics just wield too much power?



I just searched 'Saudi' here on the GH to find a previous answer for this, and ended up spending a half hour browsing through old posts. I had honestly forgotten just how ill-informed and yet strident you've been through this discussion, MB. You should honestly try doing the same search, and pause for a moment or two of self reflection. Seriously.

Anyway, here was my response last time you asked a similar thing:



We don’t agree. I think that you have cobbled together a series of Google clicks into an uninformed yet passionately-held opinion.

As for the new King, obviously I don’t know. As I said, he has done very, very little in his first year (as one would expect to be the case).

Here’s what I don’t think you understand. There is no law in Saudi Arabia. Nothing is written down; there are no government-run courts. There was an attempt to write down a criminal code; it has never been enacted. The Shia community is, by their own preference, judged in an entirely different court to the mainstream Sunni community. So when clowns like yourself say that the ‘Saudi government’ tries people for witchcraft, a lot of the time it is actually a ‘community court’ that has done so – a court chosen by the community itself based upon their religious preference, over which the ruling family maintains absolutely no control.

This falls down badly where a Sunni court manages to get their hands on and then sit in judgement of a Shia follower, by the way. The recent execution that has caused such a kerfuffle wasn’t a government topping a terrorist – it was one church rolling a significant figure in another church, just as the Catholics and Protestants have been doing in the UK for the last 400 years (historically speaking, they only just STOPPED executing each other, and only JUST JUST stopped blowing each other up with car bombs. But, you know, the Saudis are animals, aren’t they, not like us. Even today, the English Monarch is specifically precluded from marrying a Catholic.)

In our legal system, a key fundamental is ‘consistency’. If you’re busted for pot this week, you expect the same punishment as if you were busted last week. But Sharia has no expectation of consistency. Rather, the ijtihad system allows judges to independently interpret the word of God entirely depending on the circumstances of the case. So there is huge nuance in the legal system in which endless variations of circumstance are taken into consideration. The guy sentenced to death for witchcraft is just as likely to have murdered his neighbor – why have two trials when you can just have one? The entirety of his character can be judged in a Saudi trial. What is reported is that someone has been execute for ‘witchcraft’. What is not reported is the bath full of body parts they found out the back. In Australia, he’s a mentally deranged serial killer. In Saudi, he’s a witch. The American guy is executed as a murderer. The Saudis execute a witch. Either way, he’s just as dead. In reality, I’m not sure the system doesn’t work better than ours in determining guilt or innocence, despite my disagreeing with the extreme punishments.

In an attempt to modernize the judiciary without subverting the role of the mufti, the previous King introduced a series of government tribunals. These deal with issues that fall outside the immediate interest of the mosques – stuff like intellectual property law, for example. This is a massive reform when you think about it; it is the first time the Saudi royal family has attempted to move the legal system from being entirely religious in nature.

There is a government funded police force and a mosque funded (ultimately government funded) alternative police force over which the ruling family offers no direct control. The two are often in conflict. The mosque run police, the mutawa, are frankly terrifying – read up on the Mecca girl’s school fire if you want to feel sick. I would say 90% of the Saudi population would prefer them to be removed, but there is no way the Al-Sauds could take the mosques on to that point and maintain control.

And there lies the issue. Really, there is no government in Saudi Arabia to our way of thinking. Rather, the Al-Saud family was simply the leading tribe at a point in history that we started to think in terms of having governments in the region, so that is what they became. But the Kingdom is still held together with will power and compromise more than anything else.

So, to the original question – will the new King reform as the old King did? I suspect yes. But keep in mind that he does not rule with absolute authority. In fact, it’s far from it…it is highly questionable if the military would follow him in any action against the mosques (hence the creation of the Saudi Arabian National Guard, an entirely separate military force comprising ONLY members of the ruling tribe and their closely allied families). Small measures such as the creation of government tribunals may seem like nothing to us, but are absolutely massive in the Saudi context. Further reforms will be very much softly, softly.

The big factor is the issue of the age of the Saudi population. It is one of the youngest nations on earth, and has cripplingly high unemployment. There is a massive babyboom bubble of 20somethings now emerging from a dysfunctional education system. Will they move to fundamentalism? Will they instead prefer play stations and holidays at Disney? Much of the current King’s reign will depend on his ability to control the mood of this group. I have absolutely no idea which way it will go, but I assure you it will be much more complicated, far more nuanced and ultimately much less clear than page ten of Google will reveal.

Anyway, that’s my understanding in a nutshell. I am sure you will find some point buried away that page ten of Google contradicts. Please don’t bother; I am not interested in debating the minutiae of this. My point will remain anyway – there is no point applying our standards to a system that is so fundamentally different in nature. It just doesn’t work.



And another post where I thought I was very clever and interesting, but I think gives a good example of how reform works as a practical measure in KSA:


The Hai'a was set up in response to fundamentalist pressures from within the royal family to move the 'official' police further under control of the Mosques. It has been systematically taken apart ever since - de-funded in each budget, reformist leaders put in place and their powers reduced each couple of years - to the point now that the Hai'a cannot even make arrests anymore, and have a 'minder' from the 'official' police accompany them on each and every patrol. There was pressure to maintain their numbers, and this was done....by moving more and more budget to 'admin' and less and less to paying for people to actually 'patrol the beat'. Don't make any mistake - this was a deliberate attempt to sabotage the institution.

This is a classic case of Saudi 'compromise'. There was a push to move the State (further) towards fundamentalism. The royal family did what it needed to do to quell the threat, and have since worked to quietly undo it.

The fact that the Hai'a are a pack on undereducated thugs remains, however, and I agree that they are a blight on the Saudi system. They won't be there in any meaningful way much longer.



Really MB, you should pay attention to this stuff the first time round.
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: 14030
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: October 27, 2017, 3:21 am
dubby wrote:
T_R wrote:
Pigman wrote:I don’t believe that you have. It’s about damn time you did

So @T_R , please continue

MichaelJacksonPopcorn.gif



Absolutely no point. It is an incredibly nuanced situation, and we have seen over and over again that there are no shades of grey in Manbushand.

I'd argue its all grey. Or rainbows. Who knows what goes on over there



Sure as hell not me. Ridiculous bloody place.
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: 24106
Joined: March 14, 2008, 6:55 pm

Favourite Player:
Luke Turner
PostPosted: October 27, 2017, 2:26 pm
Joyce and Roberts kicked out :thumbsup
"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
Mal Meninga
Posts: 39632
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Favourite Player:
Croker, Vaughan and Fensom
PostPosted: October 27, 2017, 2:45 pm
So can somebody explain the impacts of this to me in laymans terms?
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
David Grant
Posts: 766
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm

Favourite Player:
Brad Clyde
PostPosted: October 27, 2017, 2:46 pm
Manbush wrote:Joyce and Roberts kicked out :thumbsup


I've been trying to find the reasoning, but its not available yet... but how did they come to the decision that Joyce was ineligible based on his father being a Kiwi and him automatically receiving citizenship, but Canavan is eligible when apparently his mother signed him up to be an Italian when he was 22 or whatever?

I'm not disagreeing with the Joyce decision, more trying to understand how Canavan is eligible... it seems a bit ridiculous from where i'm sitting...
I found a moon rock in my nose....
Quote
User avatar
Don Furner
Posts: 14030
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: October 27, 2017, 3:14 pm
I imagine it'll be quite some time before we see the full ruling.

I guess in the meantime, Barnaby is in for a fight up in New England.
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: 14030
Joined: August 4, 2006, 9:41 am
Location: Noosa
PostPosted: October 27, 2017, 3:16 pm
The ruling was just reported on Swiss morning news by the way - first time I've ever heard mention of Australia in the media here.
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
Laurie Daley
Posts: 11950
Joined: February 26, 2010, 6:01 pm
Location: Canberra :(
Favourite Player:
Brett Mullins
PostPosted: October 27, 2017, 3:37 pm
The Nickman wrote:So can somebody explain the impacts of this to me in laymans terms?


Bugger all. Joyce will be back on the front bench as soon as the by-election is over.

It's possible Turnbull could take another hit but after the week he's had he's probably happy that people have stopped talking about Cash.
Quote
User avatar
David Grant
Posts: 766
Joined: November 4, 2010, 1:11 pm

Favourite Player:
Brad Clyde
PostPosted: October 27, 2017, 3:44 pm
The Nickman wrote:So can somebody explain the impacts of this to me in laymans terms?


In a nutshell... Mr Joyce is Choice :hi :arrow:
I found a moon rock in my nose....
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 39632
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Favourite Player:
Croker, Vaughan and Fensom
PostPosted: October 27, 2017, 3:58 pm
Green eyed Mick wrote:
The Nickman wrote:So can somebody explain the impacts of this to me in laymans terms?


Bugger all. Joyce will be back on the front bench as soon as the by-election is over.

It's possible Turnbull could take another hit but after the week he's had he's probably happy that people have stopped talking about Cash.

I honestly don't understand what's going on... why is he eligible after by election if he's been kicked out??

Seriously, wtf is going on?
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
Don Furner
Posts: 114377
Joined: January 7, 2005, 4:21 pm
PostPosted: October 27, 2017, 4:25 pm
Bottom line is that the politicians found ineligible did not do enough to renounce their citizenship rights of other countries. If they renounce those rights, and they are only an Australian citizen, then they can stand for Parliament again.
Image
Quote
User avatar
Mal Meninga
Posts: 39632
Joined: June 25, 2012, 9:53 am
Location: Rockhampton, Central Queensland
Favourite Player:
Croker, Vaughan and Fensom
PostPosted: October 27, 2017, 4:47 pm
So they've done that obviously otherwise how can they stand in a by election?
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
PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests