Brexit

[Dante 2,739]

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

If you want to know how bad or good she is then you have to read - http://www.onenation.com.au/

I think she should be debated respectfully but she makes it difficult as she can't present a coherent thought. - Here is a snippet  - the first two lines of her policy on Islam " Australia is a country built on Christian values. Our laws, way of life and customs enforced in the Australian Constitution were based on a secular society" 

Whilst this doesn't particularly offend me  - WTF ? Seriously ?? So I will paraphrase "our country is based on religious values and therefore our country wasn't based on religious values". That's pretty straight forward. 

The whole document is full of distortion, untruths, bigotry, exaggerations and contradictions. But that is my opinion  - you need to read it and make up your own mind.

Your reference to Waleed suggests that you don't really read or listen to him either - Again a bit of research as to what he said about Pauline Hanson and Sonia Kruger is quite insightful. He actually agrees with you that they should be listened to but suggests that they then be debated respectfully.

Lastly -  "God help you if you don't agree with mass immigration or climate change, you will be called all the foul names and denigrated on the front pages of the Age and any ABC show that involves current affairs, politics or talk back" - Happy for you to present any foul names and denigration on the front pages of the Age and any ABC show. However to keep the balance  I will return serve with Andrew Bolt, the Herald Sun and Alan Jones and other shock jocks. 

 

 

 

Two seperate issues there. 1) Called foul names, mainly social media. 2) Denigrated on the front pages of the Age and any ABC show that involves current affairs, politics or talk back. Both of those statements are correct.

 

  

[Dante 2,739]

1 hour ago, nutbean said:

I thought she has improved from her previous efforts but she has problems stringing three coherent words together. I will agree it showed guts for her to come on the program but if you examine what she says  - there is so much exaggeration and plain untruths it is mind blowing. The difference for me is that all politicians lean to exaggeration and lies but i guess when it comes to whether one party's position and past credentials on negative gearing or tax breaks some distortion is fairly innocuous  - she headlines issues that need to be discussed but I believe need to be discussed with care. This is not being politically correct - it is acknowledging that religion and ethnicity is something that penetrates to the core of so many. Do you think the below statements are helpful. 

 “I would say we’re in danger of being swamped by Muslims,” she said. “If you’re going to bury your head in the sand about it, you’re a fool.” (may 2016)

2.2% of Australia's population is Muslim ( old figures) and the fastest growing religion in Australia is Hinduism.

It is the politics of fear. It is ugly and divisive.

However that is not to say that these sensitive  issues should not be respectfully and intelligently  discussed - I just don't believe Pauline Hanson does this.

 

 

Pauline Hanson makes the mistake of thinking that she has the right to express her mind and believe that she speaks on behalf of a lot of other like minded people, how dare she.  She is clearly not well enough educated to be a member of Parliament and should resign immediately.

She can't string a coherent sentence together and she obviously doesn't deserve the honour of representing the people that voted for her, be off with her, drive her out and replace her with someone that we agree with. How dare she say anything about muslims, they can say what they want to about Christians, Jews or any other person or religion, but for some strange reason we are forbidden to say anything derogatory about them.

Surely we can find a suburban solicitor or an ex union official, neither of whom has never run a business, to take her place.

I think you might find that the % of muslims has increased a bit since 2011.

 

[hardtack 10,555]

27 minutes ago, Dante said:

Pauline Hanson makes the mistake of thinking that she has the right to express her mind and believe that she speaks on behalf of a lot of other like minded people, how dare she.  She is clearly not well enough educated to be a member of Parliament and should resign immediately.

She can't string a coherent sentence together and she obviously doesn't deserve the honour of representing the people that voted for her, be off with her, drive her out and replace her with someone that we agree with. How dare she say anything about muslims, they can say what they want to about Christians, Jews or any other person or religion, but for some strange reason we are forbidden to say anything derogatory about them.

Surely we can find a suburban solicitor or an ex union official, neither of whom has never run a business, to take her place.

I think you might find that the % of muslims has increased a bit since 2011.

 

Overreaction much?  Who has said she should resign?  And who cares if the % of Muslims has increased? (particularly as the vast majority are peace loving people like the rest of us).

[Dante 2,739]

1 hour ago, hardtack said:

Overreaction much?  Who has said she should resign?  And who cares if the % of Muslims has increased? (particularly as the vast majority are peace loving people like the rest of us).

 

Sorry, you talking to me?

If you'd like to read the post I responded too, you'll see it was he that mentioned the % of muslims in the country.

There are some 400,000 muslims in this country so how the f@#k do you know the majority are peaceful? How many of them have you met, 200,000 - 300,000?

 

[hardtack 10,555]

12 hours ago, Dante said:

 

Sorry, you talking to me?

If you'd like to read the post I responded too, you'll see it was he that mentioned the % of muslims in the country.

There are some 400,000 muslims in this country so how the f@#k do you know the majority are peaceful? How many of them have you met, 200,000 - 300,000?

If you look at your own post, you will see that it was you who mentioned the percentage has "increased a bit since 2011"... which, Einstein, is what I was responding to.

You do tend to get a little overwrought in your responses, don't you; you fit in well with the Hanson xenophobic world view of assuming the worst of anything you don't understand (I base my opinion on the fact that I have lived for the past 24 years in a part of Sydney that is heavily populated with people of the Islamic faith and from my own experiences I consider them for the most part to be very peaceful - I would say that they probably represent a fairly good cross section of people of that faith and unlike you, I do not assume the worst). 

Back to your inferno.

[nutbean 8,838]

14 hours ago, Dante said:

Pauline Hanson makes the mistake of thinking that she has the right to express her mind and believe that she speaks on behalf of a lot of other like minded people, how dare she.  She is clearly not well enough educated to be a member of Parliament and should resign immediately.

She can't string a coherent sentence together and she obviously doesn't deserve the honour of representing the people that voted for her, be off with her, drive her out and replace her with someone that we agree with. How dare she say anything about muslims, they can say what they want to about Christians, Jews or any other person or religion, but for some strange reason we are forbidden to say anything derogatory about them.

Surely we can find a suburban solicitor or an ex union official, neither of whom has never run a business, to take her place.

I think you might find that the % of muslims has increased a bit since 2011.

 

Just wow..... you are really prone to the "giant leap"...  sooooo

Firstly -  nowhere did I say she should resign.

You do understand the role and job spec of a politician/leader of of party/parliamentarian ? She, like all in this field are paid ( by us. the taxpayer, by the way) to put up policy and propositions and be scrutinised by the public. They are paid to represent US in parliament and by extension on the global stage. Therefore you better believe  what she says and how she says it should be scrutinised. My opinion is she is clearly not educated enough to speak on issues as she continually gets her "facts" so wrong. She cannot logically articulate a position. But nowhere did i say she should resign or shut up - Again, if you read what I have said elsewhere - I have said the exact opposite  - I think she is good for the political process as there is enough people who support her opinions and therefore I like the Hansons of the world in the spotlight so their "policies" can be logically debated. 

She will not and should be forbidden and I think you are the only person suggesting this - she should be elected or not elected - its up to the voters. But if any person wants to be in parliament they need to be prepared to have their arguments and they way they present scrutinised and critically evaluated. 

As to your last comment as the percentage of muslims  - since you decided to bite back. First you will note that I did highlight it was old figures so since you opened the door  - a simple question -  is Australia in danger of being swamped by Muslims ? yes or no ? ( by the way - if you answer no then "you are a fool with your head buried in the sand" - not my words   - they are Pauline's).

 

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

17 hours ago, nutbean said:

If you want to know how bad or good she is then you have to read - http://www.onenation.com.au/

I think she should be debated respectfully but she makes it difficult as she can't present a coherent thought. - Here is a snippet  - the first two lines of her policy on Islam " Australia is a country built on Christian values. Our laws, way of life and customs enforced in the Australian Constitution were based on a secular society" 

 

I give up.

I just [censored] give up.

Thanks Nutbean, you have broken my spirit.

Apparently basic internal consistency is not required of an Australian senator.

[nutbean 8,838]

13 hours ago, Dante said:

 

 

There are some 400,000 muslims in this country so how the f@#k do you know the majority are peaceful? 

 

Ummm - you do understand what you are saying. The simple answer is that the majority of muslims in this country are peaceful because there is no evidence to the contrary. 

Does there need to be sensible discussion about the radicalisation of youth and terrorism which is a global phenomena ( albeit, in countries like France there are other factors that do no exist in this country that is helping to fuel radicalistion )   - absolutely.

 

 

[nutbean 8,838]

6 minutes ago, Choke said:

I give up.

I just [censored] give up.

Thanks Nutbean, you have broken my spirit.

Apparently basic internal consistency is not required of an Australian senator.

What is frightening to me is you would have to assume that more than one person has read the published policies.  I read the policy briefs of 6 parties and 5 of them (ALP, Libs, Greens, Pirate party, Nick X) can't really be picked apart as they are so "motherhood" and are completely lacking in detail. The One Nation policies on their website have more holes than swiss cheese. ( just in case you were wondering - One of ON's policy is " they oppose the introduction of Sharia law - phew  - I was particularly worried that this was imminent).

[Bluey's Dad 3,419]

1 minute ago, nutbean said:

What is frightening to me is you would have to assume that more than one person has read the published policies.  I read the policy briefs of 6 parties and 5 of them (ALP, Libs, Greens, Pirate party, Nick X) can't really be picked apart as they are so "motherhood" and are completely lacking in detail. The One Nation policies on their website have more holes than swiss cheese. ( just in case you were wondering - One of ON's policy is " they oppose the introduction of Sharia law - phew  - I was particularly worried that this was imminent).

Thanks nut.

Keep beating me down with your interesting and valid points.

Seriously starting to think the whole 'ignorance is bliss' thing is valid. 

[nutbean 8,838]

15 minutes ago, Choke said:

Thanks nut.

Keep beating me down with your interesting and valid points.

Seriously starting to think the whole 'ignorance is bliss' thing is valid. 

The interesting thing for me is I am very politically "engaged" but at the end of the day I am only arguing over how I want Australia to look and be perceived and act as a country/society. Selfishly, with either political party in power it has very little "real" impact on my life.

I pay a bit more tax, I pay a little less tax.

The hospitals get a bit better, they get a bit worse ( I have top tier health cover soooo.)

Climate change -  different policies, different parties and whilst my view is well known here the one thing i do agree with is that Australia's contribution is meaningless in real terms.

Gay marriage  - I am very vocal on this but I'm not gay so zero impact.

Indigenous issues - I am not aboriginal. 

And so on...For the last 20 years nothing either party in power has done has radically altered my life. The likes of Pauline Hanson will have zero impact on me as what she espouses firstly doesn't affect me and secondly her policy "excesses"  will never implemented.

So  looking at politics/politicians and parties in real terms I need to look outside my own existence as I have a view of what I want Australia to look like and how i want "Australia" towards it's people other than myself. Realistically ? It makes zero difference to my life.

 

 

[nutbean 8,838]

16 hours ago, Dante said:

Two seperate issues there. 1) Called foul names, mainly social media. 2) Denigrated on the front pages of the Age and any ABC show that involves current affairs, politics or talk back. Both of those statements are correct.

 

  

There are two separate issues - but you did roll them into one   - "you will be called all the foul names and denigrated on the front pages of the Age and any ABC show that involves current affairs, politics or talk back".

Social media  - must exclude "traditional media" like the Age, the HS or the ABC. "Foul names"  is rife on social media from all sides of the political spectrum

The Age, The ABC, the Herald Sun  and current affair shows or talk back - you need to differentiate between reporting the news and opinion/commentary. Again all sides of the political spectrum do this and it varies from criticism to denigration.

It is not a one way street, 

[Dante 2,739]

3 hours ago, hardtack said:

If you look at your own post, you will see that it was you who mentioned the percentage has "increased a bit since 2011"... which, Einstein, is what I was responding to.

You do tend to get a little overwrought in your responses, don't you; you fit in well with the Hanson xenophobic world view of assuming the worst of anything you don't understand (I base my opinion on the fact that I have lived for the past 24 years in a part of Sydney that is heavily populated with people of the Islamic faith and from my own experiences I consider them for the most part to be very peaceful - I would say that they probably represent a fairly good cross section of people of that faith and unlike you, I do not assume the worst). 

Back to your inferno.

So what, in your opinion, is it that I don't understand?

So you live in Sydney where there are many muslims and from your experience you consider them , for the most part to be peaceful, is that correct?  Well perhaps you can tell me how many you actually know and what you base this on, I'd assume that it must be several thousand because any smaller sample would be useless. 

Isn't it ok for a muslim to lie to a non muslim, doesn't the Quran allow this? How many of your muslim friends have gone out on the street in a mass protest against the 1 or 2 radicals (that would be the number, wouldn't it) that exist in this country? Any of the sons of your muslim friends left the country to fight with ISIS?

I don't care if you don't assume the worst or not, I'm sure there were plenty of young Women in Cologne that didn't either, that is until New Years Eve, or the families taking their children for a walk in Nice, or the young kids out for a night out at a dance or concert. Have you ever had an in depth discussion with your muslim friends about their stance regarding Gays or Women that have sex out of wedlock or how they would react if you said the the prophet didn't exist?

Muslims have invaded Europe and they did it without firing a shot, they not only did it but they actually get money from the idiots that allowed it, you must have seen the footage of them asking "where is the money", have a look at the % of them that are still unemployed years after being accepted as migrants.

http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/12/09/migrants-to-make-up-6-in-10-of-swedens-unemployed-by-2017/

https://muslimstatistics.wordpress.com

 

[hardtack 10,555]

35 minutes ago, Dante said:

So what, in your opinion, is it that I don't understand?

So you live in Sydney where there are many muslims and from your experience you consider them , for the most part to be peaceful, is that correct?  Well perhaps you can tell me how many you actually know and what you base this on, I'd assume that it must be several thousand because any smaller sample would be useless. 

Isn't it ok for a muslim to lie to a non muslim, doesn't the Quran allow this? How many of your muslim friends have gone out on the street in a mass protest against the 1 or 2 radicals (that would be the number, wouldn't it) that exist in this country? Any of the sons of your muslim friends left the country to fight with ISIS?

I don't care if you don't assume the worst or not, I'm sure there were plenty of young Women in Cologne that didn't either, that is until New Years Eve, or the families taking their children for a walk in Nice, or the young kids out for a night out at a dance or concert. Have you ever had an in depth discussion with your muslim friends about their stance regarding Gays or Women that have sex out of wedlock or how they would react if you said the the prophet didn't exist?

Muslims have invaded Europe and they did it without firing a shot, they not only did it but they actually get money from the idiots that allowed it, you must have seen the footage of them asking "where is the money", have a look at the % of them that are still unemployed years after being accepted as migrants.

 

Nutbean summed that up perfectly, with the comment in his post above: "Ummm - you do understand what you are saying. The simple answer is that the majority of muslims in this country are peaceful because there is no evidence to the contrary."

I would appreciate it if you could point me to the part of the Quran that states in no uncertain terms that lying is permitted in any circumstances; in the meantime you might want to take a look at the following link:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2010/10/are-muslims-encouraged-to-lie-to-non-muslims

As for the rest of your xenophobic nonsense, I have just one thing to say (and yes, it is abusive as you have well and truly earned it)... seriously.... you are a dead-set [censored], end of story. I'm sure though that One Nation are proud to have you as a devoted adherant.

Edited July 29, 2016 by hardtack

[Dante 2,739]

3 hours ago, nutbean said:

Just wow..... you are really prone to the "giant leap"...  sooooo

Firstly -  nowhere did I say she should resign.

You do understand the role and job spec of a politician/leader of of party/parliamentarian ? She, like all in this field are paid ( by us. the taxpayer, by the way) to put up policy and propositions and be scrutinised by the public. They are paid to represent US in parliament and by extension on the global stage. Therefore you better believe  what she says and how she says it should be scrutinised. My opinion is she is clearly not educated enough to speak on issues as she continually gets her "facts" so wrong. She cannot logically articulate a position. But nowhere did i say she should resign or shut up - Again, if you read what I have said elsewhere - I have said the exact opposite  - I think she is good for the political process as there is enough people who support her opinions and therefore I like the Hansons of the world in the spotlight so their "policies" can be logically debated. 

She will not and should be forbidden and I think you are the only person suggesting this - she should be elected or not elected - its up to the voters. But if any person wants to be in parliament they need to be prepared to have their arguments and they way they present scrutinised and critically evaluated. 

As to your last comment as the percentage of muslims  - since you decided to bite back. First you will note that I did highlight it was old figures so since you opened the door  - a simple question -  is Australia in danger of being swamped by Muslims ? yes or no ? ( by the way - if you answer no then "you are a fool with your head buried in the sand" - not my words   - they are Pauline's).

 

Firstly, my post was riddled with sarcasm, obviously that was lost on you.

As for biting back, I merely pointed out that there are more now, a rather innocuous comment I would have thought. For some reason, I get the feeling that you think I'm a Pauline supporter, well I'm not, sorry to have to tell you that. My comment was more about the pompous few who think that only people that they agree with are worthy of representing us in Parliament.  I think it's high time we got some people in there that are representative of the voters and not vested interests, be it big business or trade unions.

I'm sure you know that the Public Service runs the Government and not the politicians and if she has any agenda, I'm sure the appropriate people will tell her if it's ok or not. I used to listen to parliament and can recall when Bob Brown was first elected he had no idea but he learnt as he went along.

Hanson represents a lot of people and they deserve a voice and if it's her they have chosen then so be it, whether you think she is smart enough or not is irrelevant.

 

 

[Dante 2,739]

12 minutes ago, hardtack said:

Nutbean summed that up perfectly, with the comment in his post above: "Ummm - you do understand what you are saying. The simple answer is that the majority of muslims in this country are peaceful because there is no evidence to the contrary."

I would appreciate it if you could point me to the part of the Quran that states in no uncertain terms that lying is permitted in any circumstances; in the meantime you might want to take a look at the following link:
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/roberthunt/2010/10/are-muslims-encouraged-to-lie-to-non-muslims

As for the rest of your xenophobic nonsense, I have just one thing to say (and yes, it is abusive as you have well and truly earned it)... seriously.... you are a dead-set [censored], end of story. I'm sure though that One Nation are proud to have you as a devoted adherant.

So i take it from your response you don't have any answers to the questions I raised and would prefer to abuse me instead, that's all I needed to know.

 

[hardtack 10,555]

48 minutes ago, Dante said:

So i take it from your response you don't have any answers to the questions I raised and would prefer to abuse me instead, that's all I needed to know.

 

If they were reasonable questions then they might have gotten answers... however, your insistence on placing what can only be considered laughable limitations on what would be acceptable (eg, a sample of several thousand), makes that a waste of time and effort; particularly as you had already locked in your answer to any response I might care to make with your interpretation of the Qran (lying being acceptable)... so tell me, what was the point of my even attempting an answer? 

As I provided a response to your comment containing the Qran reference and as the rest of your drivel is not in the form of questions, but rather in the form of an Islamophobic rant, I guess I have pretty much covered it all. 

It wasn't a case of "rather abuse you", it was more a case of your leaving no better options... so let me repeat:
"As for the rest of your xenophobic nonsense, I have just one thing to say (and yes, it is abusive as you have well and truly earned it)... seriously.... you are a dead-set [censored], end of story. I'm sure though that One Nation are proud to have you as a devoted adherent."

Edited July 29, 2016 by hardtack

[nutbean 8,838]

2 hours ago, Dante said:

Firstly, my post was riddled with sarcasm, obviously that was lost on you.

As for biting back, I merely pointed out that there are more now, a rather innocuous comment I would have thought. For some reason, I get the feeling that you think I'm a Pauline supporter, well I'm not, sorry to have to tell you that. My comment was more about the pompous few who think that only people that they agree with are worthy of representing us in Parliament.  I think it's high time we got some people in there that are representative of the voters and not vested interests, be it big business or trade unions.

I'm sure you know that the Public Service runs the Government and not the politicians and if she has any agenda, I'm sure the appropriate people will tell her if it's ok or not. I used to listen to parliament and can recall when Bob Brown was first elected he had no idea but he learnt as he went along.

Hanson represents a lot of people and they deserve a voice and if it's her they have chosen then so be it, whether you think she is smart enough or not is irrelevant.

 

 

The sarcasm was lost on me - I am guessing that I need to look up the definition of sarcasm.

I have no idea what you do or don't support. You suggest your comment was innocuous - Pauline Hanson believes we are in danger of being swamped by Muslims and I pointed out the very small percentage of Muslims in this country. I pointed out the folly of her assertion - yet your only response was  - the percentage is now more ?? Your comment was either lending weight to her argument or completely redundant to the debate. 

Not a pompous few  but everyone thinks that they should be represented by the people that they agree with - that's why we have elections. And although the system does change, in the main, we get people in parliament that represent the voters and that's purely based on the notion that everyone who is in Parliament is there because under the current system, enough people for voted for them to put them there.

As to the idea that the public service runs the Government  and not politicians I would basically say - rubbish. The public service implements politicians/party/Goverment policies ( with varying degrees of success). So the public service decided to repel the carbon tax ? So the public service decided to repeal the mining super profits  tax ? So the public service (navy ) decided the turn back the boats policy. Think back to the implementation of the GST  -are you telling me that the public service decided to exempt fresh foods from the GST ( for the record it was the Democrats who had no control over the public service, who would only pass the GST legislation through the senate with the fresh food exemption  and they won a fair share of environmental policy concessions).    

Hanson was voted in and deserves her voice - whether she is smart enough or her policies are right to me is not irrelevant  - this is a democracy  - she is in public office and she will receive scrutiny. Because as happened last time she was in parliament  - when she stood for re-election a lot of irrelevant people like myself who thought she was not smart enough or her policies weren't right didn't vote for her and she was not re-elected. The idea of a democracy is I am not irrelevant. 

Edited July 29, 2016 by nutbean

[DV8 2,271]

Brexit. TPP.

Why don't we all just form a family collective across Victoria, giving us great buying power as a unit. 

We can get our electricity cheap by volume, & cheap water, cheap groceries, cheap fresh produce;  heck we'll have our own warehouse & distribution.

 

we won't need a TPP, or shares on the stock market.

Come to think of it, we won't need retailers,  or  any of those 'middle people',  taking the cream on everything.