Ok, let’s read Neil Cadman’s ad a little more closely here:
Mm, as I read that, it’s telling us that if we want to remove God’s blessing, we should Vote No. Maybe I misunderstood.
But then I don’t know why we can presume that “Australia was founded with God’s blessing”. Of course, we know about Sodom and Gomorrah (which weren’t countries but cities, however, let’s not let facts get in the way here), but what about other countries? Was Cuba founded with God’s blessing? Or Zimbabwe? Or the United States? Or China? Or just Australia?
Anyway, I suspect that the writer of the ad would benefit from a crash course in English. As would “The Australian” who, when referring to the New Zealand election, treated us to the headline, “NZ Shock: Losers Take Power”. Surely if they’re taking power, then they’re not the losers. Ok, they didn’t win more than half the seats, but nobody did. Does that mean that everyone lost and New Zealand must be ungoverned till the next election? But even allowing for that, it seems that the way Rupert’s Rabbits view elections is that if any left leaning party doesn’t get more than fifty percent of the vote, then they have no right to govern. The minor parties should support the more conservative party because they should have won. Ok, they didn’t get fifty percent of the vote either. Or even fifty percent of the seats, but as the natural leaders they should be in charge, because the votes of the people who supported them are worth more because, clearly, they’re much more intelligent having supported the same party as the Murdoch Media.
As an aside, did anyone else notice when Malcolm Turnbull talked up the credentials of the people who developed his energy policy by telling us that there were no academics on the team. No sir, we don’t want anybody who’s spent a lot of time studying the issue. Only people with a conflict of interest.
Anyway, when Michaelia Cash told us “History shows that unfortunately the last time the Labour, Greens and independents formed Government it didn’t end well”, I wondered if she was referring to a previous NZ government or Julia Gillard’s government. As I couldn’t find any references to one in New Zealand, I can only presume she was talking about Australia from 2010 to 2013. And yep, she was right. That ended with the election of the Abbott government and I think we can all agree that was a pretty disastrous thing.
I presume that was what she meant. Surely, as a Minister in Malcolm’s government, surely she’d know how to say what she meant.
[textblock style=”7″]
Like what we do at The AIMN?
You’ll like it even more knowing that your donation will help us to keep up the good fight.
Chuck in a few bucks and see just how far it goes!
Your contribution to help with the running costs of this site will be gratefully accepted.
You can donate through PayPal or credit card via the button below, or donate via bank transfer: BSB: 062500; A/c no: 10495969
[/textblock]
I am heterosexual but I really don’t see why homosexual people should not have the same rights as I enjoy.
reply for townsvilleblog:
Homosexuals already have the same rights as you- ie. they have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. I too am heterosexual and I don’t, currently, have the right to marry someone of the same sex. The idea of marriage was to provide a fertile and stable environment for the creation of children.
p.s. I don’t have any issues with homosexuals I simply believe that marriage is all about creating the ‘ideal’ environment for a child where both genders are committed to each other, the community and the upbringing of the child.
Peace
Wonderful, Rossleigh. 😀
I chuckled all the way through — even hooted a couple of times. Thank you for a good laugh. I greatly appreciate it.
darrel nay, marriage was originally a business arrangement where the man would own one, or preferably several, women.
Oh… you’re thinking that’s now obsolete? The definition of marriage has changed?
Oh, okay. Then you won’t mind that it has changed in the past half century or so, to be about love, instead of being about screwing.
Never in all the history of marriage has it been about a healthy environment for children. That’s just an excuse religious bigots make up to pretend they have a good reason for putting gay people down.
This is where gay people are having their rights trampled, because marriage, it seems, can be about love between infertile hetero couples, elderly hetero couples who can no longer bear children, but not about two gay people whose relationship is centered on love.
If you truly believed that marriage should be about providing a good relationship for raising children then you would be in favor of same sex marriage. After all, gay couples have been able to adopt children for ages. Denying them the legal and social stability of marriage contradicts what you’re saying. It means they have to raise children outside it.
But even then, with everything stacked against them, gay parents seem to do a better job, on average, than hetero parents. Children of gays do better academically and emotionally than children of heteros do. Imagine how much better those kids would manage if society allowed their parents to marry.
Although this very stark truth-telling image applies to South America in particular, the foundation of white Australia was very much related to the murderous impulse communicated in this image. Remember too that the murderous colonial/imperialist invasion and systematic plunder of the Americas, and the rest of the non-European world was “authorized” by the then pope (poop) in the “name of ‘god'” and for the “glory (gory) of ‘jesus'” via at least two papal (bull-shit) bulls.
http://www.dartmouth.edu/~spanmod/mural/panel13.html
Miriam is correct.
Marriage is in no way a prerequisite for the procreation of children, but is now merely a legal construct, being denied those in the LGBTI community by those of a pious, holier than thou group who deem marriage to be their sole universe that all must adhere to.
As marriage IS a legal construct, and gay couples can adopt, use IVF and surrogacy methods for child rearing, then all that is left to consider is the love and caring which is the backbone of all marriage relationships.
The gay couples I know personally are in no way deficient when compared to hetro relationships, the love they show for each other and the care they show for the children they are bringing up.
To think otherwise is pathetically archaic and says more about the frightened little minds of the observers than those who are currently under the Postal Survey Spotlight.
reply for miriam english,
are you an anti-religious bigot?
Cheers
Darrel nay, as George Brandis, assured us: People have a right to be a bigot!
And you shouldn’t bully her, by calling her names!
reply for miriam english,
you constantly write as if you believe you are the personification of the moral high-ground. I am allowed to disagree with you. If you’ve done your research you’ll know that there are a growing number of homosexuals (some of whom are religious and some of whom are not religious) who don’t support the idea of gay marriage – are these people homophobic too? Further, there are more and more children raised by gay couples who are coming out against the idea. I have no issues with homosexuals (as I pointed out in my first post), but you seem to think that the homosexual community is monolithic in its’ views, when the REALITY is that the homosexual community (like most other communities) is more diverse than you portray it.
Cheers
reply for rossleigh,
If you read my comment you’ll see I didn’t call Miriam English names – I asked a question ( this is still allowed in a free country and is NOT bullying).
What do you think the effect is when you call people bigots when they aren’t – I would humbly suggest that the effect is to dilute the power of the word? I enjoy sharing views with others, but being falsely called a bigot or a bully is pointless.
Cheers
Honestly, anyone who thinks marriage provides special protection for children has never experienced a typical divorce, or the desertion of spouse and children. Whatever marriage is supposed to be or symbolise, there are plenty of examples where its magic fails
reply for king1394: My mother divorced my father (he did some horrible things) and then she later divorced my ‘step-sister’s’ father (he was a fantastic father and husband). Mum is now in a happy defacto relationship and she knows that she made big mistakes in her second marriage and mum also knows that my step-sister suffered terribly as a result. For this reason, I am very interested in exploring ways to build ideal marriages.
Cheers
Perhaps you could provide a definition of same as a starting point?
reply for matters not:
assuming you are genuinely asking, and not just being sarcastic and/or cynical: I would say that respect, honesty, a sense of humour, positivity, empathy, humility ,tolerance and especially commitment are some of the qualities that contribute to an ideal marriage. May I respectfully ask what you feel about the issue?
Cheers
darrel nay, I know some gay couples who have blissful relationships of respect, honesty, a sense of humour, positivity, empathy, humility, tolerance, and commitment. Why did your Mum deserve marriage and they don’t?
I’ll call you out for the bullshit that “there are more and more children raised by gay couples who are coming out against the idea”. You might be able to find one, maybe two examples of such religiously brainwashed nitwits, but more and more? What utter tripe.
You whine that you’re allowed to disagree with me. I don’t think you realise how ridiculous that makes you sound. It’s like a child saying weakly, “You’re not the boss of me.” I genuinely don’t care whether you agree with me or not. All I care about is facts. If you say something that makes sense I’ll happily agree with you. Unfortunately everything out of your mouth appears to be defensive nonsense. “I’ve got nothing against gays, but…”, “this is still a free country…”, “I am allowed to disagree with you.” Do you even hear yourself?
Am I an anti-religious bigot? Interesting question. I don’t like religion, but most of my friends are religious and it doesn’t interfere with our friendships. It disgusts me whenever I encounter people using religion as an excuse to hurt other people, but I don’t care one way or the other when people use their religion in ways that appear to benefit them without damaging others. One of my favorite people is the Benedictine nun Joan Chittister, and I’ve written some of my stories from the point of view of a good and honest religious person despite being atheist myself. So no, I’m not an anti-religious bigot.
I won’t ask you if you’re a religious bigot because I already know the answer.
Everyone knows the Right cannot write.
reply for miriam english:
If it makes you feel better to call me a bigot, go right ahead. How many times do I have to post that I have no issues with homosexuality before it sinks in. Obviously there are plenty of people who do have issues with homosexuality, but, I am not one of them. I am a libertarian where sexual preferences are concerned.
Cheers
Anyone interested in hollywood corruption and the weinstein scandal might want to check this new doco.out – a warning: it’s not for the faint-hearted:
https://vimeo.com/142444429
WOW – why won’t the MSM cover this
Darrel Nay, listen to yourself!
“I have the right to disagree with you.”
Yet every post and comment from you clearly shows that in your mind others have no right to disagree with you.
Pathetic.
Marriage equality will make no difference whatsoever to anyone except to the non cisgender couples who choose to marry, and to their children, who will gain enormously from the improved status of their families.
So butt your selfish narow minde meanness out of an aspect of other people’s lives that is none of your business.
darrel nay, you can post endlessly that you have no problems with homosexuals and then spout nonsense about it being a good thing that they shouldn’t be allowed to marry. To anybody reading that, it’s obvious that you actually do have a problem with homosexuals — you don’t think their love is worthy of marriage. And you excuse that bigoted belief with another bit of bigotry, saying that homosexuals can’t raise healthy, balanced children.
You may have hidden your bigotry from yourself, but others can see it clearly.
Deflecting by suggesting that I say you’re a bigot because it makes me feel better is silly. I’d much prefer to be able to call you an enlightened human being. We need more of them. It makes me feel a bit sick to have to point your bigotry out to you, especially when you get all defensive and merely parry against it instead of carefully considering whether you might actually have become one without your realising it.
all hail miriam – the dalai lama is enlightened but your views just seem like self-righteous virtue signalling.
Cheers
darrel nay, I’ve given you reasons for what I’ve said, but you decide to ignore them. More fool you.
You’re mistaking for self-righteousness my impatience with your idiocy. I’m perfectly happy to admit when I’m wrong. Seems it sticks badly in your throat.
I know someone who’s gay and she told me that she didn’t mind people being heterosexual; she just didn’t think that people like that should be raising children. She told me that she had no issues with my lifestyle, and that she was prepared to speak to me.
I thanked her for her tolerance and her enlightened attitude…
No, it doesn’t seem bigotted at all when you just flip it!
Good grief, fascinating comments section. Thanks so much for your input darrel nay – it so succinctly underpinned my yes vote. Funny is it not how until Howard fiddled the books inserting “between a man and a woman” into the marriage act all was clear and dandy for all persuasions. Love your writing Rossleigh.
🙂 Rossleigh, nicely skewered by turning the viewpoint around.
its ok ive already voted yes for equality, i dont practise sodomy either
Miriam, Rossleigh is good for many things. That’s one of them. ?
You know , darrell…the right-wing of society is collectively a heartless prick..It , like you, has no effing idea of the desperate struggle, loss and suffering some people go through for just a little bit..a modicum of happiness in this world..in effect, your lot are a bunch of arseholes.
Here..for your elucidation..I throw a pearl to a swine..: https://freefall852.wordpress.com/2016/04/07/aunty/
I hope you have the courage to come out sometime in the future darrel . We shall all be rooting for you.
reply for the virtue signallers:
I just went out into the bush and cut a load of firewood, and it gave me a chance to think about being called a bigot, heartless prick,etc. etc. I was protesting back in the 70’s and 80’s for homosexuality to be legalised. I regularly post on sites from America, Israel and other places where I rail against the regimes that throw gays off buildings and make marital rape legal. If abusing me as a bigot makes some feel better about themselves, c’est la vie.
Joseph Carli has painted the right with such a broad brush that perhaps he’s bigotted against right-wingers.
The effect of running around calling people racist, homophobic, sexist, xenophobic, etc.etc. etc. is that people are waking-up to this divisive tactic.
Cheers
I don’t agree with the development of GMO’s, I have issues with children being conceived in test tubes, I’ve read Frankenstein and I value the notion that children deserve to be raised by their biological parents – where possible.
Oh yeah, and I was brought up in a generation when we understood the old truism that sticks and stones may break your bones, but names will NEVER hurt you (this meant that we didn’t raise a bunch of snowflakes that run around being triggered and calling for safe spaces). I can’t be bullied or hen-pecked.
Cheers
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/39/21/63/392163a47bcb59b695848270078f76ae.jpg
darrel..don’t come on all sancti’ about your rights and what you profess to stand up for..I know what you are..and I know that within the heart of every sincere right-winger there is more than the whisper of a Heinrich Himmler..and HE TOO, I believe “loved children”..
Sure, you’ll come back with the old line about Stalin / Mao etc..and they WERE hard-nosed..they had to be..they were fighting for the survival of their very nation and peoples..billions of them!…and they didn’t go around starting wars..
And for the record..I am not like many of the patient, forgiving leftie folk on this blog..I have read history from ancient Rome right down the line, and I know the modus operandi of the tyrants on the right..all plead, plead, plead to be heard and understood and “we really are not bad people”..BULLSHIT !..you’re a bunch of bastards..pure and simple ..with NOTHING to offer the collective social contract of humanity..it’s ALL just ; “Me , Me , Me!” all this shit of ; “I’m on your side”..yeah..like old Joe..I’d Stalinize you in a minute!
What’s all the “Cheers” about darrell nay?
There’s been a lot of noise about changing the meaning of the word “marriage”.
The word Sodomy used to mean any sort of illicit sex – rape, incest adultery and so on.
The Puritans expanded it to include any sort of sexual behaviour that wasn’t plain vanilla missionary-position and soley for the purpose of procreation.
Now it means one thing only and mainly associated with gay male sex.
Where are the zealous complainants who want to protest about changing THAT word?
I think I’ll tweet about it on my tablet and upload it to the cloud so it came be flamed by trolls.
I’m also guessing God knew what she was doing when she allowed for the creation of North Korea with her blessing.
darrel wrote..: ” I just went out into the bush and cut a load of firewood”..there..your “concern” in a nut-shell..a) in this state it is illegal to take random firewood from the bush and ; b) It is environmentally reckless to take fallen logs that make fauna shelters.
You environmental wrecking bastard!
reply for Frank Smith:
It’s simply an attempt to be civil.
Peace
reply for Joseph Carli:
I cut leftover wood from past logging operations (they call them log dumps and we are encouraged to cut it and I sell most of the firewood to the elderly ladies and old-timers who can’t cut their own anymore. Nice try mate, but maybe you can tell us how you keep warm when it gets below freezing or how you cook your food. Wood is a renewable resource. When you call me a bastard are you saying I was born out of wedlock? If you’re so worried about using resources, maybe you should stop using your computer – just a thought. I am not the sort of snowflake that shuts-up when people abuse me.Instead I am motivated to fight harder.
Cheers
You must know the biological geography, darrel…kiss it!
” and I sell most of the firewood to the elderly ladies and old-timers who can’t cut their own anymore. “…I’ll bet you f#ckin’ do….y’see..if I got it for free, and I was going there anyway..I’d give it away….But no..let me guess..: “They begged me to..!”
reply for Joeseph Carli:
As anyone who has ever tried cutting, splitting, delivering and stacking firewood knows, it is a tough and callous-inducing way to make a quid. My clients are invariably wrapped with the product and service I provide. Your criticism seems a little over the top. I’m unaware of anyone who delivers 50 ton of firewood for free, but I guess you’re a better man than me – good for you sir. You’re welcome to come and help if you’re up to the work.
Cheers
Yes, it is tough work.
But I’ve never made a quid out of it. Where I grew up, the soldiers settlers and us kids would do it all for free. It was all about helping your mates.
Jeezus..what a load of, darrel..I can see you’re the real little entrepreneur..an opportunity here, a chancer there..a few quid to be picked up around the corner..”a penny saved…” ..ooo! look at those thrown away drink-bottles..there’s money there going to waste..if only we had returns deposit in this state..I must write a letter to the editor of the Bunyip Post….Let’s see..ah! pension day! must make time to do the debt collection rounds..where’s my ledger ?…humm, hummm, humm…look after the pennies and the pounds…what’s that old song?..oh yes..; ” I’m just an old-fashion girl with an old-fashion mind…” Ah!..isn’t life just peachy!…OH, LOOK!..I SAY!..”Ahoy there! Mr. Toogood!…are you throwing out those old canna-lilies plants?..do you mind if I take them off your hands?” …oooo..youliddlebewdy..have I got a customer for THOSE..money, money, money!…
An absolute gem, Rossleigh! I laughed until I cried. OMG what an appalling lot of mean, petty plonkers are “in charge”!
Wowee wow wow! Just read some of (but not all, for pretty obvious reasons) Mr Naysayer’s squirts and blurts. Troll alert! That is all, as you were, and stand at ease! Cheers!
Some people go on a bit don’t they, Max?
Rossleigh
Laughed out loud, some of your best work.
Then I started reading the comments.
Max Gross
My thoughts exactly.
I thought the Left was concerned that the SSM debate would turn nasty – judging by the abusive language on this site I guess it is some of the Lefties who are being nasty. Will those same Lefties push for hate speech laws next? Maybe they’ll talk virtuously about cyber-bullying the next time some kid commits suicide because of on-line abuse. If people only want to hear opinions that agree with them, then they may as well talk to themselves – echo chamber. Does anyone really think that the abusive language is constructive. Clearly some people are passionate (which is great) but the gutter language only serves as some sort of compensation. It’s easy to use that sort of language on the internet but I doubt these people would have the fortitude to use the same language to my face – a bit weak.
Cheers
If commenters here think someone is a troll, why on earth do they give so much attention to a TROLL, most times much more than to the article author, and to his views…
“… I doubt these people would have the fortitude to use the same language to my face”….which one?..You have two.
Best ignored, helvityni.
Because, helvi’..part of their agenda is to appeal to left-wing tolerance of the personal sensitive to allow them safe-harbour to continue their forays into creating division and dissent..and a site “home” such as this one gives “commentary cred” to continue….eff him!
Yes Michael, I do, but many don’t…. 🙂 Your and my advise is ignored…. 🙂
Not surprised to see that Joseph Carli is another would-be ‘Staliniser’. Fantasizing about killing your fellow man/woman for disagreeing with you is pretty weird. You won’t start it though, will you, because you don’t have the conviction of your idols.
Peace
I thought the idea of a conversation was to share views, not to just listen to opinions you agree with – silly me. I guess next you’ll be promoting marriage to yourself. I’m out of here and back to the real world where people respect dissent.
Peace
p.s. Will the ‘staliniser’ kill all the children and women that disagree with him or will he work at the re-education camps pushing propaganda nonsense and left-wing tolerance?
Darrel, you’re treading a fine line. I think it’d be a good idea to give it a rest.
I probably shouldn’t respond, but…
darrel, you’ll notice that the marriage equality conversation was conducted quite civilly. It was afterward when you started trying to tell everybody what a righteous person you are (after sneering that I was somehow self-righteous) that things started to get hairy.
I have to note that you did the old religious trick of never answering to your points when they’re shown to be wrong. Instead of honestly admitting your errors you just move on, preferring instead to malign others. Yet when you got a hefty serving of the same treatment then you cry foul.
“… or will he work at the re-education camps pushing propaganda nonsense?”…would never work for Newscorpse…and don’t let the door…etc..
May I say this after having said all that.And let me make it plain . Darrell for a man with 4 jobs you spend a great of time on this on site.Your a Marvell.
Let me explain my motives for attacking the darrel…I too, like darrel suggested, live in a small community..near a small town..and I have a long history with many folk and old family in this area..from right back to the 1920’s..(my family that is..) and when I hear the kind of “talk” that the darrel uses, it rings the same tone of attitude that I have heard so many times around this hard-core Liberal area..that same patronising ; “what I have done for the people” things. full of their own self aggrandising.
Also, to give “empirical evidence” to my assertions, here is a list of questions I posed to each of the candidates of the last Local Govt’ elections..:
Questions about policy for the elections.
Topics..: Community.
What is your stand on township “greening” and beautification?
Environment. How far should human recreation and agriculture intrude into the natural environment?
Water resources.
What are your opinions concerning use of the River, water bore salination and irrigation?
Feral cats. How could the council humanely implement a feral cat control program?
Future planning. 1) How would you work with and encourage land owners and farmers to protect and enhance native vegetation? Can you include in your response ways that you would support LAP. (Local Action Planning) initiatives and programs?
2) What are your views on renewable energy solar/wind farms and their place to alleviate the onset of climate change?
I posed these questions to each one, and in some cases, particularly the more conservative/right-wing candidates, I was met with a “how dare you?” response..I mean; “Hello!..I’m a constituent!??” ..a couple even approached the chairperson of the committee who ran the volunteer organisation to try to get me thrown off the group, claiming I had no right to use the community blog to ask such questions…they failed..But several flatly refused to answer the questions..and that person ; darrel reeked..REEKED of the same language as those arrogant bastards..
So I do have skin in the game and I do NOT just attack the likes of darrel or that other loser; havana letdown for nothing.
OK, Joe Carli, you put up a good case for defence…..all’s forgiven… 🙂
Jack Straw, I noticed endless stream of Darrell posts, and wondered if he were jobless or newly retired… 🙂
Look, Darrel is clearly the sort of troll that just moves on. You only need to compare a couple of his comments to see that he’s not even vaguely interested in a constructive discussion. He picks on the targets that he sees as easiest to rile up and then just writes the sort of stuff that I’d see as consistent with someone who takes money from old ladies who are too weak to chop their own wood… (Of course, if Darrel replies to this, I’ll respond by asking – given his belief that people should look after themselves – why he’s supporting such lazy people who don’t chop their own!)
“Oh yeah, and I was brought up in a generation when we understood the old truism that sticks and stones may break your bones, but names will NEVER hurt you (this meant that we didn’t raise a bunch of snowflakes that run around being triggered and calling for safe spaces).”
“Does anyone really think that the abusive language is constructive.”
Now, given the success of Tony Abbott at becoming PM for such a long time…
Well, it seemed a long time.
Anyway, people like Darrel may think that it’s enough to be a complete tool and pose in the costume of an outdoors man, but in the end, it’s people who can actually build agreements that count.
I’m tempted to say that’s why Turnbull is such a success, but I was trying hard to refrain from irony…
Anyway, Darrel, if you’re tempted to comment again, I suggest that you go out and do something that will stretch your brainpower. Or just chop up another branch or two. Much the same thing really!
Darrel nay says his objection to non-hetero marriage is not based upon any prejudice against non-heteros, but based solely upon his idea that wedlock is all about creating an ‘ideal’ environment for rearing biological offspring.
By this ‘logic’, hetero couples who are either unable or unwilling to breed should also be denied the ceremony of marriage.
Perhaps a binding procreative contract could be written into the Marriage Act.
I applaud that darrel protested to decriminalise same-sex preference/orientation, and the fact that, unlike some conservative groups (eg Q society) and politicians (eg Bernardi, Christensen), he isn’t happy to stand alongside people advocating and applauding the public murder of homosexuals.
Ps, here’s a fairly succinct summary of the case for ‘NO!(!!!)’.
Well said to Rossleigh, Miriam and Joseph. And to Darrel, I handed in my yes vote asap. Cheers
An (ideal) environment is one in which one feels safe, loved, and listened to and cared for.Even if you are raised by 2 female Gorillas.
As an addendum to my justification piece above, I should mention that ALL those conservative wannabe councilors DID get into the local council so they could push their agenda..a singular agenda because they all assisted each other to get enough votes to gain office.
As many here will know, Local Govt’ voting is not compulsory, so there is little oversight on procedure and those councilors used their positions in local footy clubs and bowling and service clubs and one who owned an hotel to encourage the patrons with a local version of pork-barrelling (ie; happy hour free drinks, vouchers, etc) to assemble enough votes to get them over the line…they are as crooked as any old ward politician!
And their line of reasoning is always the same..”I want to give back to the community”…..but first, they want to take something away.
The fake vote on allowing rights for gay people is just the beginning. (Fake, because ample reputable surveys already showed that Australians are overwhelmingly in favor of marriage equality.) Next will be the long push back against the changes allowing religious bigots exceptions to anti-discrimination laws. These exceptions will be pushed by the usual suspects, and spearheaded by that paragon of virtue, Dutton.
They will be arguing that nobody should not be able to discriminate against others on the basis of religion… except for Christians who should be able to discriminate against others on the basis of religion.
I suspect ONE hidden agenda (and perhaps the main one) behind this SSM survey vote will be to use the excited agitation to vote one way or the other as justification to push through voluntary voting for general elections, using the (one-off) high percentage of voting numbers to justify the reason.
Turnbull has said that same-sex marriage will be legal by Christmas if the YES vote wins.
http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/leaders/prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-says-parliament-will-deal-with-samesex-marriage-bill-before-christmas/news-story/bfc9bce2f4d4308152f457109b05515f
Sorry, but I don’t trust him.
Michael He probably meant he’ll be gone by Christmas.
Jack, he certainly has backed himself into a corner. Most people are a bit dangerous when they’re backed into a corner, but no, not Turnbull. He’s too weak to fight his way out.
You could be right in that he’ll be gone by Christmas. By then he’ll know for sure his standing in the eyes of his party and the electorate. My prediction (and yours too, I imagine) is that his standing will be worse then than it is now. And let’s face it, it fairly low now!
Goodbye, Malcolm. You won’t be missed.
Why is it that none of the naysayers want to discuss how their argument is anything other than an attempt to say that some members of the Australian community do not deserve a right to equality?
They want to discuss precreation, schooling, deviancy, freedom of speech, freedom of religion. Anything but equality. Anything but the only question being asked in a non-compulsory, non-binding postal survey.
On a separate matter, and with due regard to your recent sojourn to the land of the long white cloud, was there any discussion of banana’s tilt at Kiwi of the year? It came up after those nasty Kiwi’s tried undermining Australia’s sovereignty, but has been dropped from any news coverage since.
“New Zealand of the Year award manager Glyn Taylor on Friday revealed Mr Joyce was the second-most nominated person on the prize’s long list so far. The number of nominations indicates Mr Joyce’s public support as a top Kiwi, while a judging panel will ultimately decide the winner.
“At the conclusion of the nominations period, the awards office will assess Mr Joyce’s eligibility based on his citizenship and other criteria,” he said.”
“There have been 371 nominations received for next year’s honours so far and a shortlist of candidates will be announced on September 18.”
http://thenewdaily.com.au/news/2017/08/25/deputy-prime-minister-barnaby-joyce-new-zealander-year/
So, if the Kiwi’s have already decided on banana’s eligibility, why haven’t they shared that? Would it impact on the High Court’s deliberations? Would it be another attempt to undermine Australia’s sovereignty? If nothing else, it would save us a motza on legal fees if they can decide his eligibility based on nothing other than a survey.
As for that conflict of interest thingy, we have a precedent. The NAIF, no less. Ok, it is yet another council comprising ‘non-academics’. But they have a really good way of dealing with ‘conflict of interest’ matters.
“The independent board overseeing Australia’s $5bn infrastructure agency is again under fire over potential conflicts of interest that now involve half of its directors as a result of mining industry links.”
“In a statement Warburton said Naif “in accordance with good governance”, including guidelines issued by the Australian National Audit Office, “does not release details of specific recusals” made by its directors.
She said directors were aware of their obligations to disclose and manage conflicts, and had “significant experience in deciding whether their personal circumstances give rise to an actual, apparent or potential conflict of interest”.”
https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/sep/13/infrastructure-fund-directors-under-fire-again-over-potential-conflicts-of-interest
Physician, Heal thyself.
Thank you Mr Brisbane and commenters. Take care
Joseph, I hope you’re wrong. Voluntary voting in elections would be a giant mistake. The conservatives would have the most to gain by such a fiddle though, so I can imagine them pushing for it.
Voluntary voting is one item on the IPA hit-list.
Non-elected ministers of government is another.
Wow. The IPA is truly a subversive extremist organisation.
Miriam, really!
They merely suggest that the tedious concept of the citizenry electing the people responsible for our governance be removed from our nominal democracy, and you call them subversive extremists?
. Joseph Carli October 22, 2017 at 8:00 am
“As many here will know, Local Govt’ voting is not compulsory”,
Voting is compulsory in local government elections, except in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania.
Voting is compulsory in local government elections, except in South Australia, Western Australia and Tasmania.
Oh..right..ta!..am in SA.
Well put in all regards …. and some of the comments in rebuttal to Nay, Nay, Nay are almost on the same level ….