On 17/08/2015 at 04:56, dee-luded said:

you reckon the shortman is the only opportunist in Canberra, or the free western world, do you dc?

I see so you don't care about other peoples interests in what effects they're lives in a direct way, on the physical plane?

so, you only care about your team? winning,,,? but what about your principles dc, do you have some?

surely you can rise above whats been drummed into your head, to find something you truly believe in?

edit : by the way, after reading this post & editing for grammar, spelling, I heard its potential for creating the wrong impression Re myself.

for the record I am 100% heterosexual, only attracted to the female form.

but I have a lot of friends who are very gay... good friends, as long as they leave me alone in my safety when amongst them. some didn't, and are no longer friends.

.

of course he's not the only one in canberra, d-l, are you daft?

as for the rest of your post i have no fn idea what you are talking about

  On 17/08/2015 at 04:55, nutbean said:

This is one of my major beefs - "we have a mandate" - that was being trotted out with gay abandon ( pardon the pun) - a 53.5% mandate at the election - but with everything pointing to 70% wanting marriage equality these bozo's can't work out what the population want so we need a plebiscite or referendum ? spare me.

just a minor pedantic point nut, but where do you get your 70% figure from

unless you mean that recent sample of 1000 people

you'd be happy to pass legislation in government based on 3rd party polls of a handful of people?

now i'm not saying the figure isn't 70% or any other figure over 50% just that the one you quote isn't worth jackshyte and is only suitable for the gullible who read the tabloid press

  On 17/08/2015 at 06:26, daisycutter said:

of course he's not the only one in canberra, d-l, are you daft?

as for the rest of your post i have no fn idea what you are talking about

.......... so this is about same sex marriage debate, & you pluck out one of your gems mentioning bill, & opportunism.... from the hoards of opportunists, & of all colours, & probably also including your good self as an opportunist?

So what are your thoughts on the same sex marriage bill of equal opportunity? & where do they fit into your side of political thinking..

what do you want to see, as an outcome for these people who would like to legally marry?

  On 17/08/2015 at 06:36, dee-luded said:

.......... so this is about same sex marriage debate, & you pluck out one of your gems mentioning bill, & opportunism.... from the hoards of opportunists, & of all colours, & probably also including your good self as an opportunist?

So what are your thoughts on the same sex marriage bill of equal opportunity? & where do they fit into your side of political thinking..

what do you want to see, as an outcome for these people who would like to legally marry?

go back and read my first post, instead of jumping to conclusions and being too lazy to read the whole thread

this issue doesn't need to become a political football or a cynical move to gain votes at an election

gillard and rudd with penny wong had 6 years to resolve this issue and baulked it. now shortman wants to paint himself as a white knight for a few silver coins (votes)

  On 17/08/2015 at 07:10, daisycutter said:

go back and read my first post, instead of jumping to conclusions and being too lazy to read the whole thread

this issue doesn't need to become a political football or a cynical move to gain votes at an election

gillard and rudd with penny wong had 6 years to resolve this issue and baulked it. now shortman wants to paint himself as a white knight for a few silver coins (votes)

do you mean post No 3 ?

  On 13/08/2015 at 22:23, daisycutter said:

fair enough

but i would have thought having a referendum next year was kinda "putting it on the table"

what's another year after 1000's of years?

i'd have thought calling for a referendum was a positive

unless of course you don't trust the public?

kind a putting it OFF the table, you mean, shirley ?

because that roman rabbott 'caesar', doesn't want to confront this conflict in his current term, or should I say, whilst he is in the lodge (a parliamentarian)...

so, whilst 'caesar the rabbott' is doing his Pels work, this equal opportunity bill will not get anywhere.

  On 17/08/2015 at 07:10, daisycutter said:

go back and read my first post, instead of jumping to conclusions and being too lazy to read the whole thread

this issue doesn't need to become a political football or a cynical move to gain votes at an election

gillard and rudd with penny wong had 6 years to resolve this issue and baulked it. now shortman wants to paint himself as a white knight for a few silver coins (votes)

so shortman chasing this issue is to gain votes, but not what he believes in at all.

but greasy joe hockey pulling welfare from the vulnerable, including the aged pensioners, & also raising the retirement age, just so higher salary earners who cheat the tax system, can earn even more money without paying tax, & then spend they're newfound gains on property (negatively geared property), just so those who work in the trenches have to work till 70 yrs of age, just for the privileged few, hey dc ?

but the multi nationals companies & CEO's ripping off the nations of their hard earned wealth, scurry around in the shadows, & in the dark, avoiding paying they're multi national companies taxes, thru absolute deception of the populous, like the rodents they are !

.

  On 17/08/2015 at 08:33, dee-luded said:

so shortman chasing this issue is to gain votes, but not what he believes in at all.

but greasy joe hockey pulling welfare from the vulnerable, including the aged pensioners, & also raising the retirement age, just so higher salary earners who cheat the tax system, can earn even more money without paying tax, & then spend they're newfound gains on property (negatively geared property), just so those who work in the trenches have to work till 70 yrs of age, just for the privileged few, hey dc ?

but the multi nationals companies & CEO's ripping off the nations of their hard earned wealth, scurry around in the shadows, & in the dark, avoiding paying they're multi national companies taxes, thru absolute deception of the populous, like the rodents they are !

.

i don't know how personally in favour is shortman

however it is quite possible to be in favour and still cynically try to lever it for your personal advantage. nothing contradictory there

i don't trust shortman one iota. sooner labor replace him the better (same with rabbott btw)

FYI there are a number of "romans" in the other party too (and traditionally has always been a stronghold)

as for all your other comments, they are off topic in this thread

  On 17/08/2015 at 10:19, daisycutter said:

i don't know how personally in favour is shortman

however it is quite possible to be in favour and still cynically try to lever it for your personal advantage. nothing contradictory there

i don't trust shortman one iota. sooner labor replace him the better (same with rabbott btw)

FYI there are a number of "romans" in the other party too (and traditionally has always been a stronghold)

as for all your other comments, they are off topic in this thread

why do you bother speculating in these forums clogging them up, when you aren't interested in them, accept to say interest in your side of politics & of trying to run protection-eering of the blue tongues & they're side... ?

are you & wrecka members of the same blue tongue club, playing the tag team of distraction & of non commitment of your values, & ideas... but only disrupting the thread.

while you do that, other people are battling with feeling like 2nd class citizens, living they're lives without the law protecting them.

if you don't hold a real view to help people, get out of the way, & let others who care, try to help.... dc, your a list clogger.

  On 17/08/2015 at 11:01, dee-luded said:

why do you bother speculating in these forums clogging them up, when you aren't interested in them, accept to say interest in your side of politics & of trying to run protection-eering of the blue tongues & they're side... ?

are you & wrecka members of the same blue tongue club, playing the tag team of distraction & of non commitment of your values, & ideas... but only disrupting the thread.

while you do that, other people are battling with feeling like 2nd class citizens, living they're lives without the law protecting them.

if you don't hold a real view to help people, get out of the way, & let others who care, try to help.... dc, your a list clogger.

now you are just talking rubbish and proving you don't either read or understand

i don't support either party d-l

i believe in some aspects that are to the left and some that are to the right - why is that so hard to understand

i hate the current political environment, not just here but seemingly all over the western world

despite all this i recognise there are generally two sides to any political story and no side is 100% correct

what i don't understand is people who slavishly tie themselves to one party's ideology and blind themselves to any other opinions

people who believe that only their way is right, that the world is black and white and denigrate all those who might hold alternate views or nuances

no better or less bigoted than your hated romans, d-l

if you think i'm a list clogger, then don't engage with me. i'm sure i could handle the disappointment

  On 17/08/2015 at 11:29, daisycutter said:

now you are just talking rubbish and proving you don't either read or understand

i don't support either party d-l

i believe in some aspects that are to the left and some that are to the right - why is that so hard to understand

i hate the current political environment, not just here but seemingly all over the western world

despite all this i recognise there are generally two sides to any political story and no side is 100% correct

what i don't understand is people who slavishly tie themselves to one party's ideology and blind themselves to any other opinions

people who believe that only their way is right, that the world is black and white and denigrate all those who might hold alternate views or nuances

no better or less bigoted than your hated romans, d-l

if you think i'm a list clogger, then don't engage with me. i'm sure i could handle the disappointment

your righting rubbish, you just dilute any thread your in. you do not care about the issue, but you still partake in the thread.

myself, I've documented that I have voted for the Liberals, at both Federal, & at State political level on a couple of occasions, for certain issues.

I have also voted Greens at federal level for the House of Reps, & certainly in the Senate as well.

And also its of no surprise that I also sway to the social side of capitalism... the type of capitalism that was abundant, back in the 50's thru to the late 80's.

no one is ever 100% correct, because there is no such thing as being perfection.

I do not hate romans dc, I have many Italian friends... the roman is more so vatican, dc, & the oppression from them, & from the derivatives, of that organisation, oh, & I also have catholic friends, dc... the oppression caused by that ideology can be very hurtful & damaging to peoples health.

I experienced it first hand over the last 30 months, from some very serious Salvo's, army is right, bigoted people... bigoted.

& you see, I have grown up in that grey area, dc. I have frequently held differing views from the majority, as I've always been able to see the viewpoint from both sides, & I have never felt the need to hide behind the masses. pardon that pun. or be a sheep.

the only ideology I am tied to, more a feeling/belief than ideology, is decency; for peoples rights, & the culture that breeds being helpful & sharing, caring, & consideration for others.

...... the greed that has grown onto our cultural rolling stone, has eroded the way of life & our cultural values, which I loved of our nation. The values that caused people to drop what they're doing to lend a hand, the time people had that allowed them to be caring & friendly.

In recent decades suspicion has taken the friendliness away from our Australian culture, & replaced it with frowns side-ward glances, & looking down the nose at others..

What was once a friendly warm nation, is now judgmental, & full of fear, & suspicion, derision, & of pretense; trying to outdo the next person, dc...

Instead of a nation cohesion; competitiveness has created all the things you would want your family to stay away from. & this is whats causing the dissection of this nation.

People with more, have more to lose, & are then more protective of they're material things, & suspicious of others about the place. This creates a lot of nastiness, & of bigotry.

there goes the neighborhood, dc.

...... its time to push those organisations out of the way, & to help people live happy, healthy lives.

thanks d-l

this was a thread about same sex marriage until you came trampling in and brought all your usual off topic ramblings and personal anecdotes

i would be well pleased if you didn't respond to my posts

  On 17/08/2015 at 12:46, daisycutter said:

thanks d-l

this was a thread about same sex marriage until you came trampling in and brought all your usual off topic ramblings and personal anecdotes

i would be well pleased if you didn't respond to my posts

done

  On 17/08/2015 at 06:32, daisycutter said:

just a minor pedantic point nut, but where do you get your 70% figure from

unless you mean that recent sample of 1000 people

you'd be happy to pass legislation in government based on 3rd party polls of a handful of people?

now i'm not saying the figure isn't 70% or any other figure over 50% just that the one you quote isn't worth jackshyte and is only suitable for the gullible who read the tabloid press

Galaxy research 64%

Australian 76% ( of 1200)

Cosby Textor 72%

Iside-with 63% (thats on 69,000 respondents).

Give me an hour and I'll get you ten more

Not a huge believer in polls dictating policy and action but almost everyone I talk to, everything I read, every inch of publicity dedicated to this debate seems to be consistently in one direction.

An honest question - They often talk about a "groundswell of support" for an issue - can you honestly say that you don't believe a sizeable majority either believe in marriage equality/same sex marriage or importantly whilst not necessarily supporting, have no issue with legislation on this issue being passed ?

  On 19/08/2015 at 01:14, nutbean said:

Galaxy research 64%

Australian 76% ( of 1200)

Cosby Textor 72%

Iside-with 63% (thats on 69,000 respondents).

Give me an hour and I'll get you ten more

Not a huge believer in polls dictating policy and action but almost everyone I talk to, everything I read, every inch of publicity dedicated to this debate seems to be consistently in one direction.

An honest question - They often talk about a "groundswell of support" for an issue - can you honestly say that you don't believe a sizeable majority either believe in marriage equality/same sex marriage or importantly whilst not necessarily supporting, have no issue with legislation on this issue being passed ?

agree, there is no doubt a groundswell and i think a plebiscite/referendum would probably win.

i'd be very surprised however if the result was 70% or 70+%

if i had to take a punt i'd say somewhere in the 55-60% but don't hold or quote me on that

whether it is decided by a pollie vote or plebiscite/referendum makes little difference to me personally

i think i would prefer a plebiscite though but not a biggie for me

it's gonna happen and relatively soon. don't sweat it....lol

  On 19/08/2015 at 02:28, daisycutter said:

agree, there is no doubt a groundswell and i think a plebiscite/referendum would probably win.

i'd be very surprised however if the result was 70% or 70+%

if i had to take a punt i'd say somewhere in the 55-60% but don't hold or quote me on that

whether it is decided by a pollie vote or plebiscite/referendum makes little difference to me personally

i think i would prefer a plebiscite though but not a biggie for me

it's gonna happen and relatively soon. don't sweat it....lol

I know exactly what your reply will be but what grates my grits is the dis-ingeniousness of the pollies that they need to go the people to get a decision - issues which have had much less support of the public are voted in parliament on a regular basis without the need for public affirmation.

( yes..I know ...I know... I shouldn't expect anything different from any political party)

this thread is supposed to be about same sex marriage, so why does it turn back to what happens in the political game all the time, & posters neglect to say whether THEY are FOR or against same sex marriage.

we can debate political to-ing & fro-ing, in any one of a thousand different threads..

surely this debate requires postors to say what they think about the issue themselves?

  On 19/08/2015 at 03:55, nutbean said:

I know exactly what your reply will be but what grates my grits is the dis-ingeniousness of the pollies that they need to go the people to get a decision - issues which have had much less support of the public are voted in parliament on a regular basis without the need for public affirmation.

( yes..I know ...I know... I shouldn't expect anything different from any political party)

well i suppose there is no easy definition of which issues are best put to a plebiscite/referendum vis-a-vis parliament (except for constitution mandated stuff)

over the last 2 governments both have shown when in power a reluctance to take on the responsibility

both parties did though go into their respective governments with an official policy of no-change

so a plebiscite/referendum is a good circuit breaker and maybe more democratic than a pollie's conscience (which is possibly an oxymoron)

it was good enough for the irish and there's plenty of irish blood here

like i said, don't sweat it

  On 19/08/2015 at 04:05, dee-luded said:

this thread is supposed to be about same sex marriage, so why does it turn back to what happens in the political game all the time, & posters neglect to say whether THEY are FOR or against same sex marriage.

we can debate political to-ing & fro-ing, in any one of a thousand different threads..

surely this debate requires postors to say what they think about the issue themselves?

Actually, if we really want to be pedantic, Nutbean in the original post was asking:

"I am interested to hear from supporters of not allowing same sex marriage to understand why they believe a Government should be able to dictate on an issue that has no impact on the vast majority of the population."

And as Nutbean and DC are discussing whether govt should dictate or whether it should go to the public, then they are on topic. Still waiting for any not in support, to emerge.

Just do it through the parliament. A conscience vote with our Pollies and then make it happen in legislation. Good God it is not that big a deal for those who aren't impacted by this. A plebiscite? At what cost? For Gods sake Tony make a decision for once in your sheltered life. Cardinal Pell might not be happy but he is in Rome and you are PM now.

  On 19/08/2015 at 11:32, Earl Hood said:

Just do it through the parliament. A conscience vote with our Pollies and then make it happen in legislation. Good God it is not that big a deal for those who aren't impacted by this. A plebiscite? At what cost? For Gods sake Tony make a decision for once in your sheltered life. Cardinal Pell might not be happy but he is in Rome and you are PM now.

It's pretty clear to me that Abbott is just using the plebiscite idea as a smokescreen. It means he doesn't have to reiterate his backwards views on same-sex marriage and can claim to be 'giving normal aussies a voice' on the issue.

He's playing politics.

  On 19/08/2015 at 22:48, Choke said:

It's pretty clear to me that Abbott is just using the plebiscite idea as a smokescreen. It means he doesn't have to reiterate his backwards views on same-sex marriage and can claim to be 'giving normal aussies a voice' on the issue.

He's playing politics.

Spot on...

He learned this off Howard and the Republic Referendum. The difference is that Howard was the consummate politician as opposed to Abbott.

  On 19/08/2015 at 08:37, hardtack said:

Actually, if we really want to be pedantic, Nutbean in the original post was asking:

"I am interested to hear from supporters of not allowing same sex marriage to understand why they believe a Government should be able to dictate on an issue that has no impact on the vast majority of the population."

And as Nutbean and DC are discussing whether govt should dictate or whether it should go to the public, then they are on topic. Still waiting for any not in support, to emerge.

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/38889-same-sex-marriage/#entry1138453

  On 13/08/2015 at 00:21, nutbean said:

I would be interested in hearing the thoughts on anyone who does not support the change in legislation to allow same sex marriage and if so why ?

For me personally - As a hetrosexual male, I do not support same sex marriage but only for myself - I don't support opposite sex marriage either but that's another story. But do I support a change in the legislation ? - absolutely - and the reason is simple. Allowing same sex marriage has zero impact on anyone who does not want to marry the same sex.

This is such a no brainer of an issue for me that it makes my head spin. If one truly does not support same sex marriage as I am sure many don't then object in the strongest way possible by not marrying someone of the same sex. It is that easy.

If I woke up tomorrow and was told that same sex marriage had been legalised for 5 years it would have had no impact on my life whatsoever except I probably may have got a handful more wedding invitations.

I am interested to hear from supporters of not allowing same sex marriage to understand why they believe a Government should be able to dictate on an issue that has no impact on the vast majority of the population.

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/38889-same-sex-marriage/#entry1138566

daisycutter said >

  On 13/08/2015 at 04:51, daisycutter said:

same sex marriage is like tripe, broccoli and brussels sprouts - not for me, but go ahead, knock yourself out

....... sounds like an answer from someone who hates the idea... so in they're heart is against it, or at least really indifferent ? ...... so with this, my interpretation then struggles to understand why he continues with the thread, only contributing political concepts, over & over again... to me, this is not about concepts, but more about your position Re how others are directly & physically effected harshly, by these restrictions in our laws.

maybe this is why I do not get "daisycutter" ... because I receive conflicted ambiguous messages in the way he writes his stuff; so I find this unbelievable. I'm not convinced that this is how he really feels, but rather, maybe its the way he wants to think ????

this is how I read/interpret dc, that he's more like a light blue liberal for the status quo, than a truly broadminded open minded thinker. thats the tone I perceive, from within his messages. so I feel its wishy washy.

oh, & as an aside, it seems its a bit northern stand like to me, similar to the melbourne failing teams, play safe, conservative, & over polite, at the cost of failure.

  On 20/08/2015 at 03:07, dee-luded said:

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/38889-same-sex-marriage/#entry1138453

http://demonland.com/forums/index.php?/topic/38889-same-sex-marriage/#entry1138566

daisycutter said >

....... sounds like an answer from someone who hates the idea... so in they're heart is against it, or at least really indifferent ? ...... so with this, my interpretation then struggles to understand why he continues with the thread, only contributing political concepts, over & over again... to me, this is not about concepts, but more about your position Re how others are directly & physically effected harshly, by these restrictions in our laws.

maybe this is why I do not get "daisycutter" ... because I receive conflicted ambiguous messages in the way he writes his stuff; so I find this unbelievable. I'm not convinced that this is how he really feels, but rather, maybe its the way he wants to think ????

this is how I read/interpret dc, that he's more like a light blue liberal for the status quo, than a truly broadminded open minded thinker. thats the tone I perceive, from within his messages. so I feel its wishy washy.

oh, & as an aside, it seems its a bit northern stand like to me, similar to the melbourne failing teams, play safe, conservative, & over polite, at the cost of failure.

DLuded, I think it is you that is offside, you often go off on tangents and engage in shadow boxing.

For the record, on same sex marriage let them have it, plenty of hetero couples wish that they were banned from marriage why should gays have all the luck?

And for DLuded , I am a private school educated, MCC member pinky lefto. I vote Green or Labor, I like the ABC and prefer Tony to Alan Jones, now you can pigeon hole me.

Edit:- I started out voting Liberal then Labor then Democrats then Green last time Independent, politically I have not changed much, however I have watched the parties move to the right. First the liberal then the Labor party. I think over time we are seeing parties move right then new parties appearing to fill the void.

  On 21/08/2015 at 06:07, ManDee said:

DLuded, I think it is you that is offside, you often go off on tangents and engage in shadow boxing.

For the record, on same sex marriage let them have it, plenty of hetero couples wish that they were banned from marriage why should gays have all the luck?

And for DLuded , I am a private school educated, MCC member pinky lefto. I vote Green or Labor, I like the ABC and prefer Tony to Alan Jones, now you can pigeon hole me.

Edit:- I started out voting Liberal then Labor then Democrats then Green last time Independent, politically I have not changed much, however I have watched the parties move to the right. First the liberal then the Labor party. I think over time we are seeing parties move right then new parties appearing to fill the void.

.... don't be silly ManDee, its not pigeon holing individuals, not even your good self, unless I name & accuse them directly of it.

I'm pigeon holing the overall culture of that side of the ground, generally speaking.. I've sat in there myself, had a reserved seat on differing seasons, & it feels comfortable, but its boring, &, not at ease to me.

I don't like sitting in the same place all the time, & I prefer to be able to engage with the opposition supporters, & with our own as well, in the outer.

I applaud 'la difference', & those who stand up for their beliefs, & not follow, just because that's the way it's done there.

my gripe is with the culture of that conservative & privileged side of the 'G', & this same culture is what rounds our boys off too soon, before those young warriors win us any flags.

We keep turning out fine young men, but not aggressive footballers. They turn into wealthy business-types, but as footballers achieve little in silverware, & bugger all for those supporters/members on the outer.