23 minutes ago, hardtack said:

This just shows the ignorance that has resulted from your blind hatred of a particular group in our society. As someone else in this thread so right;y pointed out, the number of Muslims registered to vote would pale into insignificance in comparison to those of other religious and cultural beliefs. For example, the seat of Blaxland in Sydney is not only populated by Muslims, but also by Pacific Islanders, Chinese, Vietnamese, Christians (particularly Catholics) and so on. 

Read again the part where I state that not once did I encounter a single piece of material urging muslims to vote No (and I live in an area with a large Lebanese and Turkish population), yet I saw many examples of literature being distributed, particularly directed at members of the Asian community by Christian groups, disseminating false “facts” about the impact of same sex marriage, and urging people to vote No.

This is the problem with being a conflicted lefty. The Islamic population does pale into insignificance compared to other religions as you try and argue but the terrorism that is born from this  minority group is horrific and significant.

The electorates with high Muslim populations also voted against gay marriage in droves.

59 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

This is the problem with being a conflicted lefty. The Islamic population does pale into insignificance compared to other religions as you try and argue but the terrorism that is born from this  minority group is horrific and significant.

The electorates with high Muslim populations also voted against gay marriage in droves.

You are seriously deluded if you consider yourself a conservative; you’re extreme in your views way beyond the “lefties” you keep calling out;. Nothing else to say other than the fact that you are a dead set drop kick Wrecker.

2 hours ago, hardtack said:

You left out a couple of very important points...

 

5. Conservatives, smugly like to feel that they are superior beings.

 

i agree hardtack, being superior is no excuse for smugness 

3 minutes ago, hardtack said:

You are seriously deluded if you consider yourself a conservative; you’re extreme in your views way beyond the “lefties” you keep calling out;. Nothing else to say other than the fact that you are a dead set drop kick Wrecker.

You attack me personally when I point out the obvious conflict of a leftist desperate to represent every minority but unable to admit they don't all share the same leftist values.

5 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

You attack me personally when I point out the obvious conflict of a leftist desperate to represent every minority but unable to admit they don't all share the same leftist values.

No, I attack you for your comments regarding terrorism... not so different to the low lives that collared Dastyari in a Melbourne pub recently. You tar them all with the same brush, because that’s convenient for you.

7 minutes ago, hardtack said:

No, I attack you for your comments regarding terrorism... not so different to the low lives that collared Dastyari in a Melbourne pub recently. You tar them all with the same brush, because that’s convenient for you.

When you call me, not my argument "deluded", that is a personal attack.

When you call me a "drop kick" that is a personal attack.

I have thick skin and don't care but you need to learn the difference between attacking a person and attacking a persons argument. If you don't undesrtand perhaps your brother can teach you.

BTW do you know what pub it was that Dastyari got verbally abused in recently?

29 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

When you call me, not my argument "deluded", that is a personal attack.

When you call me a "drop kick" that is a personal attack.

I have thick skin and don't care but you need to learn the difference between attacking a person and attacking a persons argument. If you don't undesrtand perhaps your brother can teach you.

BTW do you know what pub it was that Dastyari got verbally abused in recently?

When a person comes out with statements such as yours, then yes, I attack the person responsible for those remarks. There was no argument provided by you... just the broad brush approach.

The pub (as it’s referred to in every single article on the incident) was the V U Bar in Footscray. What is the point you’re trying to make?

4 minutes ago, hardtack said:

When a person comes out with statements such as yours, then yes, I attack the person responsible for those remarks. There was no argument provided by you... just the broad brush approach.

The pub (as it’s referred to in every single article on the incident) was the V U Bar in Footscray. What is the point you’re trying to make?

So you think attacking people personally is justified if they don't follow your world view. I though you were far left but now I'm thinking totalitarian.

I asked about the location of the pub because I had heard Dastyari had gone out of his way to go there with cameras. I am not trying to victim blame, Dastyari should be free to go where he wants without harassment. He did, however, choose to go somewhere he expected to get harassed and went armed with cameras.

11 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

So you think attacking people personally is justified if they don't follow your world view. I though you were far left but now I'm thinking totalitarian.

I asked about the location of the pub because I had heard Dastyari had gone out of his way to go there with cameras. I am not trying to victim blame, Dastyari should be free to go where he wants without harassment. He did, however, choose to go somewhere he expected to get harassed and went armed with cameras.

The footage was taken by one of the “patriots” who filmed the episode on a phone and posted it on their Facebook page. 

7 minutes ago, hardtack said:

The footage was taken by one of the “patriots” who filmed the episode on a phone and posted it on their Facebook page. 

Anyone who says those things is no patriot.

Dasyari went to that pub hoping for that outcome. It doesn't excuse it and I condem the behaviour.

4 hours ago, Wrecker45 said:

I'm pretty comfortable arguing about conservatism and to be fair I can see why you might be confused. A few points

1) Conservatives have their own opinions guided by a set of principals unlike the left who all seem to think the same thing and tow the same line

2) Conservatives believe in free markets, why would they put restrictions on gay weddings that will clearly boost the countries GDP?

3) Conservatives unlike progressives don't like change for change sake but will change for the greater good

1. All political ideologies rest on a set of principals - that's not unique to conservatism. As for who makes up their own mind and who follows like sheep, the left would say exactly the same thing about you. And centrists would claim that the faithful on both sides of the political divide are slaves to ideology and incapable of forming an opinion of their own independently.

2. Yes, conservatives believe in free markets, but who ever said anything about putting restrictions on gay weddings? No conservatives have advocated that, but - in case you've been living on Mars - they are calling for protections on religious freedoms and parental rights. Because that's what conservatives do - they want to maintain, keep, preserve and protect social institutions and values, not change them.

3. This is a major departure from yesterday's claim that conservatism is a driver of social change but you're still a million miles away from base camp. I don't know why you are so desperate to claim 'change' as a tenet of conservatism. Yes, Howard changed gun laws 'for the greater good', but it was in response to a major event, not a policy position or article of faith that they took to an election. And  you seem to have forgotten that it nearly tore the Coalition apart, the Nats had to be dragged along kicking and screaming and Howard had to wear a bullet-proof vest in the bush. Here's Abbott again, spelling out that the only change conservatives support are those that which actually stop things from changing: "Conservatives are often eager for change, especially when change is required to preserve a value, an institution or a way of life that they cherish."

Anyway, I think we're done here pal, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm curious what you and others think on the impending vote. Should MPs in the House vote according to how their electorates voted? Should the Labor MPs from Sydney's west be voting no, and Abbott, Andrews et al voting yes? I'm inclined to think yes, the parliamentary vote should reflect the electorate.. otherwise what was the point of having the survey, and what's to stop all MPs now voting according to their own consciences / beliefs rather than the will of the people? 

 

2 minutes ago, Grapeviney said:

1. All political ideologies rest on a set of principals - that's not unique to conservatism. As for who makes up their own mind and who follows like sheep, the left would say exactly the same thing about you. And centrists would claim that the faithful on both sides of the political divide are slaves to ideology and incapable of forming an opinion of their own independently.

2. Yes, conservatives believe in free markets, but who ever said anything about putting restrictions on gay weddings? No conservatives have advocated that, but - in case you've been living on Mars - they are calling for protections on religious freedoms and parental rights. Because that's what conservatives do - they want to maintain, keep, preserve and protect social institutions and values, not change them.

3. This is a major departure from yesterday's claim that conservatism is a driver of social change but you're still a million miles away from base camp. I don't know why you are so desperate to claim 'change' as a tenet of conservatism. Yes, Howard changed gun laws 'for the greater good', but it was in response to a major event, not a policy position or article of faith that they took to an election. And  you seem to have forgotten that it nearly tore the Coalition apart, the Nats had to be dragged along kicking and screaming and Howard had to wear a bullet-proof vest in the bush. Here's Abbott again, spelling out that the only change conservatives support are those that which actually stop things from changing: "Conservatives are often eager for change, especially when change is required to preserve a value, an institution or a way of life that they cherish."

Anyway, I think we're done here pal, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm curious what you and others think on the impending vote. Should MPs in the House vote according to how their electorates voted? Should the Labor MPs from Sydney's west be voting no, and Abbott, Andrews et al voting yes? I'm inclined to think yes, the parliamentary vote should reflect the electorate.. otherwise what was the point of having the survey, and what's to stop all MPs now voting according to their own consciences / beliefs rather than the will of the people? 

 

 

Great question. How should politicians vote when the overall majority voted yes but the individual members electorate voted no. Or vice versa. 

In my opinion and like John Howard stated these things should have been agreed apon before the vote. 

This is my first (and probably only post on this thread)

My postal "vote" is still kicking around the floor of The Manor, or maybe the Lads ate it.

One hundred $mill  on a survey! [censored] me!

Our political system is currently a [censored] up! We have no leaders! No decision makers!

We have a bunch of [censored] ups who are only prepared to [censored] with the wind behind them.

 

22 minutes ago, Bitter but optimistic said:

This is my first (and probably only post on this thread)

My postal "vote" is still kicking around the floor of The Manor, or maybe the Lads ate it.

One hundred $mill  on a survey! [censored] me!

Our political system is currently a [censored] up! We have no leaders! No decision makers!

We have a bunch of [censored] ups who are only prepared to [censored] with the wind behind them.

 

Billions are wasted on climate change and mad green schemes.

Billions are wasted on the NBN.

100s of millions wasted on school halls, pink batts and cash for clunkers.

Yet you're worried about 122 million that gave the people a vote to determine an outcome that fundamentally changes the fabric of society as we've known it ?  A vote that could have dire consequences to free speech ?

The Left rarely worry about money.  It's very funny and disingenuous when they choose to.

Pro - the money spent on school halls wasn't wasted. Both my kids went to scungy public high schools with terrible facilities (because our governments keep giving money to posh schools to build Olympic pools and rowing sheds) - both got wonderful new sporting venues which have been a real boon to our local community.

 

Agree with you on the NBN. Bloody Turnbull. 

10 hours ago, ProDee said:

Billions are wasted on climate change and mad green schemes.

Billions are wasted on the NBN.

100s of millions wasted on school halls, pink batts and cash for clunkers.

Yet you're worried about 122 million that gave the people a vote to determine an outcome that fundamentally changes the fabric of society as we've known it ?  A vote that could have dire consequences to free speech ?

The Left rarely worry about money.  It's very funny and disingenuous when they choose to.

We won't talk about the billions wasted on building concentration camps in Nauru and manus, or the billions wasted fighting USA proxy wars. That's just for s start. Pink bats, ding bats...

45 minutes ago, dieter said:

We won't talk about the billions wasted on building concentration camps in Nauru and manus, or the billions wasted fighting USA proxy wars. That's just for s start. Pink bats, ding bats...

The Manus and other camps are a smart investment that repays every dollar 10 fold, by keeping a human tide of welfare recipients out of the country.

And please explain to us the proxy wars that we are fighting on behalf of a non-participating U.S ?

 

11 hours ago, ProDee said:

Billions are wasted on climate change and mad green schemes.

Billions are wasted on the NBN.

100s of millions wasted on school halls, pink batts and cash for clunkers.

Yet you're worried about 122 million that gave the people a vote to determine an outcome that fundamentally changes the fabric of society as we've known it ?  A vote that could have dire consequences to free speech ?

The Left rarely worry about money.  It's very funny and disingenuous when they choose to.

So let me get this straight....

Uncle Bitter is now a Lefty?

The bloke whose main contributions to the board involve banter with Biffen and Daisycutter and jokes about llamas, S&M, Romsey and getting pizzed on 15 dollar plonk is now Ho Chi Minh because he once expressed an opinion that, heaven forfend, the survey was a waste of money? You wouldn’t want children reading such blasphemy!

Do you still eat Snickers’ bars? I wouldn’t if I were you. I hear that’s where the Illuminati and New World Order types hide microchips to track your movements!

7 minutes ago, Colin B. Flaubert said:

So let me get this straight....

Uncle Bitter is now a Lefty?

The bloke whose main contributions to the board involve banter with Biffen and Daisycutter and jokes about llamas, S&M, Romsey and getting pizzed on 15 dollar plonk is now Ho Chi Minh because he once expressed an opinion that, heaven forfend, the survey was a waste of money? You wouldn’t want children reading such blasphemy!

Do you still eat Snickers’ bars? I wouldn’t if I were you. I hear that’s where the Illuminati and New World Order types hide microchips to track your movements!

Two things:

1. I've never heard him complain about wasted money before and there have been numerous opportunities.  But it's possible I've missed it.

2. I've met him in person and he identified as being Left.  So that was probably the give away.

34 minutes ago, faultydet said:

The Manus and other camps are a smart investment that repays every dollar 10 fold, by keeping a human tide of welfare recipients out of the country.

And please explain to us the proxy wars that we are fighting on behalf of a non-participating U.S ?

 

You are aware that Turkey got in 3 hours during the peak of the Syrian crisis what Australia gets in one year? 

You are also aware that one person per head in Manus costs 140k? 

And that boat arrivals, the only source of Manus refugees, were found to have a 90% approval rate before ScoMo cut down avenues to appeal? (Compare that to air arrivals).

Also that asylum seekers have no right to work in Australia while on bridging visas? It’s rich to complain of ‘dole bludgers’ when they aren’t even able to get a job. And receive 75% of  Newstart (which was being argued to have been below the poverty line as far back as 2013)?

Or that this is a thread about the Marriage Equality Survey? (That is addressed to the Tory equivalent of Moe. Larry and Shemp).

Scratch that. This has been fairly emblematic of the knuckledragger conservative side of the debate. They never really wanted to talk about the crux of this issue anyway. It was always about changing the subject at such a pace and sprouting enough falsehoods or non sequiturs that it would be impossible to keep up. Once one load of irrelevant or incorrect steaming horse crap was debunked, 8 more were waiting.

 

 

10 minutes ago, ProDee said:

Two things:

1. I've never heard him complain about wasted money before and there have been numerous opportunities.  But it's possible I've missed it.

2. I've met him in person and he identified as being Left.  So that was probably the give away.

Did you report him to special branch? He may be indoctrinating the alpacas!

11 hours ago, Jara said:

Pro - the money spent on school halls wasn't wasted. Both my kids went to scungy public high schools with terrible facilities (because our governments keep giving money to posh schools to build Olympic pools and rowing sheds) - both got wonderful new sporting venues which have been a real boon to our local community.

 

Agree with you on the NBN. Bloody Turnbull. 

The school halls funding at the school my wife was teaching at was butchered.

Firstly they didn't need another school hall. Secondly they desperately needed and still do need maintenance on their existing infrastructure. They weren't able to divert the funds they had to build a new hall they didn't need.Thirdly for them to receive the funding it was compulsory to put Labor advertising out the front of the school.

I'm sure it was appreciated at plenty of schools but it was an A grade example of tax payer waste at my wife's school.

15 minutes ago, Wrecker45 said:

The school halls funding at the school my wife was teaching at was butchered.

Firstly they didn't need another school hall. Secondly they desperately needed and still do need maintenance on their existing infrastructure. They weren't able to divert the funds they had to build a new hall they didn't need.Thirdly for them to receive the funding it was compulsory to put Labor advertising out the front of the school.

I'm sure it was appreciated at plenty of schools but it was an A grade example of tax payer waste at my wife's school.

I no longer see Jara's posts, but good to know it's alive and well.

45 minutes ago, ProDee said:

I no longer see Jara's posts, but good to know it's alive and well.

Aw but but.....Pro...you should have hung in there. You could do with a little more fun in your life. 

 

1 hour ago, Wrecker45 said:

The school halls funding at the school my wife was teaching at was butchered.

Firstly they didn't need another school hall. Secondly they desperately needed and still do need maintenance on their existing infrastructure. They weren't able to divert the funds they had to build a new hall they didn't need.Thirdly for them to receive the funding it was compulsory to put Labor advertising out the front of the school.

I'm sure it was appreciated at plenty of schools but it was an A grade example of tax payer waste at my wife's school.

Fair enough. I can't claim to know much about other schools. As long as your wife wasn't teaching at Scotch or Melbourne Grammar, I'm sorry they didn't get what they wanted. I seem to recall it was all done in a rush - part of a financial stimulus to help us avoid the GFC - successfully, I seem to recall, though God knows who was responsible for that - Labor reckons they were, Libs reckon Costello.  

 

But, as I said, both my daughters' schools received great facilities which are used by the entire community.

9 minutes ago, Jara said:

Aw but but.....Pro...you should have hung in there. You could do with a little more fun in your life. 

 

Fair enough. I can't claim to know much about other schools. As long as your wife wasn't teaching at Scotch or Melbourne Grammar, I'm sorry they didn't get what they wanted. I seem to recall it was all done in a rush - part of a financial stimulus to help us avoid the GFC - successfully, I seem to recall, though God knows who was responsible for that - Labor reckons they were, Libs reckon Costello.  

 

But, as I said, both my daughters' schools received great facilities which are used by the entire community.

Kevin Rudd has since stated and made clear that Wayne Swann was incompetent. I'm not sure Labor can claim credit for avoiding recession following the GFC.

It will come as no surprise that I liked Costello. He left money in the coffers but did he do enough with the proceeds of the mining boom? Hard to say but give us Costello or even Keating as treasurer today and I'm pretty sure most would agree we would be heading in the right direction. I just can't see any current parlimentarian being a Costello or Keating.