nutbean

If we were talking two different opinions then I'd let it go but I keep replying because your logic is so flawed. You were trying to make the point that the Liberals didn't touch medicare because the co-payment never passed the Senate. If you try to murder someone but don't succeed you get had up for attempted murder. You may say policy or not, it didn't get through - nope - the reality is - get through or not, it's their policy. If you can't understand why the election outcome tightened after Turnbull ousted Abbott then you have no understanding of politics. Why on earth do you think that Abbott was ousted ? Because he was heading for a crushing defeat and the Libs becoming a one term Government. The Libs opted for someone who they rightly assumed was more appealing to the electorate. Again, there is another to cut the loss. But let's wait a year and revisit and then you will understand that leading a Government with a slim or no majority with a hostile Senate is not winning. And as to who will make the better negotiator - read the article again - We do know because most of the same senators were re-elected who have been negotiating with Shorten and Turnbull in the last Parliament. For the record - I don't like Shorten or Turnbull either.

I work from the base all pollies lie. Nothing Abbott did surprised me - his form was pretty much to script. I have no idea what either Turnbull or Shorten stand for.

Interesting - To this day I am not sure if it was mistake or if it wasn't - all i know it was handled appallingly

Actually I am a little with Wrecker on this - I can state that I immensely dislike Abbott's politics ( despise is such a harsh word and i actually don't despise him) but I don't think we were left in much doubt on what his plans were when he put himself up for election last time around. I believe that is why Abbott got elected last time and Hanson this time ( and no I am not comparing their policies - just their approach) - you know exactly what they stand for. The problem for me is that whilst it is refreshing to having a pollie speak their mind and "tell it like it is" - you then need to actually listen to what they are actually suggesting. On this site before the last election I espoused the dangers of Abbott but when he was elected he pretty much did what he said he was going to do. Ultimately, in a fairly short space of time the polls ( if you want to take notice of them) told us that the public overwhelmingly repudiated his views - but it does then raise the question - how on earth did he get elected in the first place ? ( and yes there were lies - but that is age old - I am talking more about Abbotts agenda which was never a secret)

In answer to the first question - apparently yes (http://hotcopper.com.au/threads/crossbenchers-believe-bill-shorten-a-more-skilful-negotiator-than-malcolm-turnbull.2807424/) In response to your second question - irrespective of a minority or majority in the House of Reps, Turnbull has to negotiate with two groups that are antagonistic - The Senate and the right wing of his own party.

I'm not sure you understand the political process - The co-payment wasn't just "suggested" - if it could have got through the Parliament it would have been law - just because a policy gets rejected by the Parliament ( or it is made clear that it will not pass through Parliament) doesn't mean it wasn't policy in the first place ! There was rejection of so much Abbott's budget measures, medicare Co-payment, Childcare and family tax benefits, university fees deregulation, stripping of funding/closure to various Enviromental funds/organisation ( which turnbull has now reversed) to name but a few. Make no mistake - if Abbott had a majority in the Senate lots of "suggestions" would now be law.

Isn't that the point - the removal of Abbott for Turnbull, irrespective of what Turnbull actually did in the last parliament after he took control was seen as move to bringing the Liberal Party more to the centre. The Labor lead was always going to be eroded under Turnbull led Gov't as he is considered much more moderate than Abbott and has more appeal to Labor voters than Abbott. As an aside, there are wins and there are wins and in the political sphere it is not always about a single election. In my opinion, Shorten is actually a two time winner ( and I am no member of the Shorten fan club). Firstly - he reduced the Coalition hold a power to a piece of thread. Secondly he is not in power in a Parliament that will most likely be a minority house of Reps with a Senate that has a balance of power held by assemblage of different interests. I would suspect that Shorten is breathing a sigh of relief. This is not going to be pretty or easy governing for the libs.

But there is no greater wrath than a woman scorned. (I know - the ex Mrs Nutbean wrathed me to within an inch of my life)

This is a rarity in my opinion . The whole "he barracked for them as a kid" deal is just irrelevant. If Hogan leaves to play for Freo, it will be because he wants to go home to Perth.

I think that explains a lot - probably why you barrack for the dees - you are a sucker for punishment.

I disagree. I don't disagree with your stance on vaccination - IMO opinion stopping vaccination is incredibly dumb. But if you base your vote for Hanson on this I will scratch my head in bewilderment but respect your right to your opinion. I can turn away from an opinion that is a differing opinion which I believe is based on, as someone else said on here, "being an idiot" - I counter that with the belief that if enough people feel the way I do then the policy will never become law - ( as in her vaccination policy). I can't turn a blind eye to bigotry and racism and whether these "policies" become law or not I won't sit back and just hope that enough people feel the same way. It is apparent already that this approach is already gaining traction as many people are already coming out and speaking against Hanson - they are not speaking about her policy on vaccination nor are the speaking about her policy on climate - they are speaking about her racist views. Again - so it is clear - our democracy means that anyone with any views ( as long as they meet the necessary AEC criteria) can run for our parliament - I respect their rights to do this and I respect anyone's right to cast a vote for them as they see fit.

I agree - but you can still compare their progress as footballers . I was clear that you need a few seasons at least before you mark a players report card as a pass or fail and I was clear that I think it is too early to stamp OMac's either way. But it is also clear that some players stamp themselves earlier than others irrespective of what position they play.

Zero chance of him being delisted. Whilst he is not someone who I would chase he does have currency.

If we were to "punt" on a player that could have upside in them like a Lin Jong, I would prefer punting on a key back as that is our deficiency.

I am not an Oscar McDonald basher. I am firm believer in having to get games ( be it Casey or the seniors) , preseasons, stronger bodies and a touch of maturity into players before judging. I don't write off 20 year old's. I think you need to give even a little more leeway to Key position players and ruckman as they do tend to take a little longer to develop ( there are always exceptions). I will say the Salem has shown a lot more maturity, smarts and the probability of a good AFL career in his brief time than Omac has. I am absolutely not dismissing Omac only stating that Salem IMO is way more advanced in showing what he can be than OMac is.

I agree with the first sentence and whilst I also agree with you assessment of the three you mentioned there is no doubt we would be a club much worse off for Hogans departure. We would be worse off on the field as I do believe he will be our first genuine star since Robbie but also I also believe that it is just as important for us, a club, to be known as a club that can retain its most valuable assets.

HT, I guess my main concern with politics and I how I react to people's political view is the basis for their beliefs. Climate science, brought up by Wrecker, is a perfect example. Wrecker and my difference of opinion is based on an issue that is not influenced by race, religion or gender. What to do about terrorism is a more vexing issue. What I won't do is pillory an entire religion based on fanatics that have hijacked a religion and taken it to the extreme. (before anyone suggests that the Koran is full of extreme views - Leviticus 20:10 prescribes that all adulterers get put to death . For me, I am not happy with religion because of the problems it can cause - however the evolution of religions - of Christianity,Judaism and Islam ( amongst others) - where it is moderate and peaceful is not part of this problem ). I have no problem with differences of opinion - I would happily have a beer (pepsi max) with a wrecker and we would tell each other how deluded each others views are. What I cannot abide by is bigotry and blatant racism.

Firstly - everyone has a view and is entitled to it- absolutely spot on. Whether I agree with a view is not irrelevant - that is why we have a democracy. It is my chance to show my opinion is not irrelevant - I can agree by voting for that person or disagree by actively voicing my opinion and then voting against the likes of Pauline Hanson. And as to them not caring what I think - I ask why on earth a person would run for Parliament if they didn't care. Pauline Hanson does care what we think and does want as many people to vote for her as possible so we can have a royal commission into Islam and climate science.

I have got to draw the line somewhere - for each person the line may be different. I can only call it as I see it. Pauline Hanson's view on marriage equality is either a binding referendum or free vote in parliament. I have no problem with that. My issue is that I strongly believe that people are not voting for her because of her marriage equality stance or her stance on climate change.Whilst she is much broader in her policy outlook this time around rightly or wrongly her views on race and religion is core and IMO is THE reason why people voted for her. As to finding her abhorrent 18 years ago - for me the only change is she now can talk (barely) on other issues. She has not changed her stance on the Asian invasion - it was abhorrent 18 year ago and the abhorrence has stood the test of time.

I'm going to be both precise and perplexed. I have met people who hold racist/Xenophobic views and I usually use the term ignorant/uneducated rather than idiots. But I can't explain the likes of David Irving who is far from being ignorant/idiots and is highly educated. I can't reconcile someone as highly educated as he is holding the views that he does.

You don't have to necessarily discuss politics to understand peoples views or belief system. I have friends who don't believe in the science of climate change and some that do. I have friends that oppose and support negative gearing. Funnily enough, I don't have friends who are bigoted. You are right some of my friends may be closet Hansonites. Once they publicly espouse her views I would just say, all good , but then I wouldn't feel the need to continue the friendship. We all have opinions and we have core values. I have friends with differing opinions but I don't have friends with differing core values.

Nope - that would not work for me - again you didn't read what I wrote. My ( and pretty much the greater majority of Australians) complete disrespect and ridicule is enough. I am firm believer in bringing down people with these beliefs by the power of argument. Not quite sure how you made the leap to "locking them up" and as to the idea of not allowing them to vote, I will repeat again since you may have missed it - I respect everyone's right to vote.

You are confusing "right" with "respect". Under our democracy everyone has the "right" to vote for who they want. I will never denigrate or disrespect anyone's "right" to vote for whoever they want. However, I will not "respect" their choice in this case. I'll call a spade a spade - you use the word bogan. I will say that Hanson is bigoted and racist and by association people supporting her open themselves to them same labels. If I hear again "Pauline is just saying what we are all thinking" I will spew. She is saying what racists and bigots are thinking. Interestingly, I think that Hanson is good for the political process. Her last stint, she brought up a lot of issues that people just did not want to talk about - indigenous issues and immigration. I thought that was great. She put a spotlight on these issues and then was completely pilloried for her repulsive solution which was also great. Again, she has been elected and the bubbling undertones of these issues will be given public airtime which is a good thing. I believe (hope) exactly the same thing will eventuate as the last time. People will see her narrow minded, ignorant, Xenophobic, bigoted views for what they are and reject them outright. footnote - I sit right in the middle of the political sphere and have voted in the past for all 3 of the major parties. I "respect" the choices of everyone except for a small minority of the parties/candidates whose platform resorts to bigotry and racism

Seriously..The slogan that "anyone is up for trade" is such a nonsense. There are a select few players that just cannot traded as it would tear the very fabric of the club. Nathan Jones is one of them. Yup - he turned it over a few times but yup he kept presenting and presenting and presenting.

It was Tina Turner impact. I know - she is a living legend - but I will be controversial and say that I would rather have my ears and eyes pierced with sharp bamboo stakes than have to listen or look at her.