|
Cartoon posted:So bitter wages disputes with the USU and the USU links to the RT&S have nothing to do with it? I find that hard to believe. Remember, you're talking about a government that already tried changing an entire state electoral law to get Clover Moore out of the mayoral chains.
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:39
|
|
Waaaah the Christians are out to get me
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
i may not be a fancy rooters and shooters legal theorist but I'm not sure how it can possibly be legal to give corporate entities the vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:44
|
|
|
Quantum Mechanic posted:Remember, you're talking about a government that already tried changing an entire state electoral law to get Clover Moore out of the mayoral chains. Why the hell would they want Clover Moore out of her position? What did she do?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:i may not be a fancy rooters and shooters legal theorist but I'm not sure how it can possibly be legal to give corporate entities the vote.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:47
|
|
|
http://catallaxyfiles.com/2014/08/12/a-note-to-my-colleagues-on-the-right/comment-page-1/#comments catallaxyfiles turns on tony abbott
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:Why the hell would they want Clover Moore out of her position? What did she do? They want a Liberal or Liberal-leaning Lord Mayor.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:49
|
|
|
About that wage breakout:quote:Bernard Keane @BernardKeane 5m
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:50
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:Why the hell would they want Clover Moore out of her position? What did she do? She's a popular independent and a progressive who's successfully pushed anti-corruption/ICAC and gay rights legislation; Fred Nile hates her and the Liberals can't win elections against her, so all the little right-wing parties have to contrive new ways to squeeze her out.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 02:59
|
|
|
Can't state governments do whatever the gently caress they want with local governments and the way in which they're elected(as long as it doesn't breach other laws) because local governments have no authority or status other than that given to them by the relevant state acts?
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 03:16
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:Why the hell would they want Clover Moore out of her position? What did she do? She won't approve dodgy development. Given that the purpose of government in NSW seems to be "give developers what they want" you can see there's a conflict.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 03:20
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:Perhaps, but artifically declaring geographical and cultural integration may have similar effects. Maybe you ought to take a second to consider that for every 50 Western-born Moslems who grow up to become radical, there are 5000 who grow up to become atheists (whether they declare that publicly or not) but who then remain silent on the matter. For every 5 Western Moslems who were barracking for ISIS to genocide the Yazidis, there are were 5,000000 who were hoping the Yazidis survived. All Moslems in the West face systemic and overt prejudice, but their Western experience dilutes the amount of belief in god in their community, and that can only be a good thing, because emigrant culture does eventually, in some ways, affect the culture of their place of origin. And for gently caress's sake, stop treating Islamic cultures as though they were monolithic. Not even Arabic cultures are monolithic.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 03:24
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:Can't state governments do whatever the gently caress they want with local governments and the way in which they're elected(as long as it doesn't breach other laws) because local governments have no authority or status other than that given to them by the relevant state acts? They can do what they want with who they represent and how, indeed under the NSW Constitution they can be appointed. However if they tried to amend the law to turf out Clover it would be basically a giant neon sign, forty meters tall, over the head of whichever Premier saying "I AM A FUCKSTAIN ONLY CONCERNED WITH DEVELOPERS MONEY AND GETTING MORE OF IT!"
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 03:39
|
|
|
thatbastardken posted:i may not be a fancy rooters and shooters legal theorist but I'm not sure how it can possibly be legal to give corporate entities the vote. Universal Suffrage.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:02
|
|
|
Bomb-Bunny posted:They can do what they want with who they represent and how, indeed under the NSW Constitution they can be appointed. However if they tried to amend the law to turf out Clover it would be basically a giant neon sign, forty meters tall, over the head of whichever Premier saying "I AM A FUCKSTAIN ONLY CONCERNED WITH DEVELOPERS MONEY AND GETTING MORE OF IT!" None of them have seemed to mind this so far, not sure why it would change now.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:04
|
|
|
iajanus posted:None of them have seemed to mind this so far, not sure why it would change now. Nothing really. Only that appointed civic authorities means extra liability for the state parliament, and broader council areas risks giving local councils too much influence. Making them too small does to, since they build coalitions and power networks, Victoria has a sweet-spot for this about now where they're mostly receptacles of hate and corruption.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:12
|
|
|
One of the things is in a state where you have a primate city(the biggest city is disproportionately larger than any of the others in the region), the state government becomes in many ways a quasi-city council. Melbourne and Victoria certainly function like this in many aspects.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:15
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:One of the things is in a state where you have a primate city(the biggest city is disproportionately larger than any of the others in the region), the state government becomes in many ways a quasi-city council. Melbourne and Victoria certainly function like this in many aspects. And you only have to look at ICAC currently to see how NSW isn't really like that (Newcastle politics is driving a bunch of it, more than State-level stuff). Doctor Spaceman fucked around with this message at 04:30 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:27
|
|
|
Gough Suppressant posted:One of the things is in a state where you have a primate city(the biggest city is disproportionately larger than any of the others in the region), the state government becomes in many ways a quasi-city council. Melbourne and Victoria certainly function like this in many aspects. QLD is pretty much the same, but that could largely be because Newman is still in his Lord Mayor/local council frame of mind and used to doing things as he did before (which explains why he's going balls up).
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:32
|
|
|
quote:Former police minister Mike Gallacher has been implicated in a scheme to take illegal donations from Nathan Tinkler's property development group Buildev, after a corruption inquiry heard allegations he was "orchestrating" the payments. 
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:37
|
|
|
Ian Winthorpe III posted:if you're the kind of person to whom such critical thinking comes naturally when presented with the rhetoric of a Christian, why on earth would you take something like 'Islam is a religion of peace' at face value? For once in his life, IWC is 100% right about something. http://johannhari.com/2011/02/25/can-we-talk-about-muslim-homophobia-now/ quote:The most detailed opinion survey of British Muslims was carried out by Gallup, who correctly predicted the result of the last general election. In their extensive polling, they found literally no British Muslims who would say homosexuality is “morally acceptable.” Every one of the Muslims they polled objected to it. Even more worryingly, younger Muslims had more stridently anti-gay views than older Muslims. These attitudes have consequences – and they are worst of all for gay Muslims, who have to live a sham half-life of lies, or be shunned by their families. Those On My Left fucked around with this message at 04:53 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:44
|
|
|
im late but re: islam iwc is actually kind of correct-ish it's wrong to say that islam is a religion of war, but it's probably equally wrong to say that islam is a religion of peace. The only unconiditonally peaceful major religion would have to be new testament christianity (definitely not old testament) The problem with Islam is that there is no central authority, as there is with Christianity - it's no longer possible for someone to have uncontested authority. Instead, everyone is able to choose whatever religious leader or teachings or school of thought that they want. Combine this with the content of holy texts: the quran was built up over the course of twenty years, and contains elements from a period where Mohammed was a crazy spiritual leader wandering around in the desert, and also when he was the ruler of a city - it therefore deals with both spiritual and worldly, practical matters in a way that new testament christianity does not, and as Mohammed's thoughts evolved, new content can directly contradict older content The other major body of muslim thought is the sura - sayings of Mohammed that were attributed to him in the decades following his death, written down by his confidantes, and again often very contradictory and little better than hearsay. The two big contentions are jihad. Initially literally meant struggle against the enemy, but later defined in islamic jurisprudence to be both lesser [external] and greater [internal]. But you're allowed to pick which jurisprudence you listen to -again, there's no central auhtoirty Dar al harb and dar as salaam may not be "koranic" concepts, but are definitely an established element of islamic jurisprudence again, and can be taken as 'gospel truths' by people who's views they align with. I guess what i'm getting at is that Islam, and the Koran, both condones and refutes violence in different places, and in the absence of a central authority it's up to the individual to pick- and choose- what elements they emphasise and which they downplay. Obivously this is very much determined by indivudla and social factors such as wealth, cultural context, upbringing, encounters with diversity. But if someone is predisposed to certain anti-humanist views, the fuel for the fire is very much present in the Koran and in subsequent Islamic teachings. There is no blanket injunction against violence akin to Christianity's "turn the other cheek" or "love your enemies". Islam is in this way much closer to Judaism, and i think it's wrong to call it the religion of peace. plumpy hole lever fucked around with this message at 04:54 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:50
|
|
|
Les Affaires posted:Why the hell would they want Clover Moore out of her position? What did she do? Also Bike lanes.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:54
|
|
|
Soag posted:I guess what i'm getting at is that Islam, and the Koran, both condones and refutes violence in different places, and in the lack of a central authority it's up to the individual to pick- and choose- what elements they emphasise and which they downplay. This is in no way unique to Islam. If there was a central authority and it was preventing a group of Muslims from doing something they wanted to do they'd split and start a new church based on a different interpretation.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:56
|
|
|
Soag posted:The only unconiditonally peaceful major religion would have to be new testament christianity (definitely not old testament) Bullshit. Aside from the fact that Jesus specifically says that the Old Testament still applies, and aside from the history of Christianity, Jesus himself says that he comes to bring a sword. Soag posted:Christianity's "turn the other cheek" or "love your enemies".[/b] Islam is in this way much closer to Judaism, and i think it's wrong to call it the religion of peace. The only problem here is that what was meant was to turn the other cheek only to other Jews who offend you, as does love your enemies - it definitely didn't apply to non-Jewish individuals. Jesus literally calls non-Jewish people dogs who deserve only scraps from the tables of the Jews. I'd say this is probably less damning of Moslems and more damning of England. The Moslems I know from Australia don't really have any problems with gay people. Don't ignore the intersectionality at play here either - for the longest time, African Americans weren't too pleasant towards gays compared to their white counterparts either. BlitzkriegOfColour fucked around with this message at 05:01 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:58
|
|
|
open24hours posted:This is in no way unique to Islam. If there was a central authority and it was preventing a group of Muslims from doing something they wanted to do they'd split and start a new church based on a different interpretation. yeah but the koran emphasises an individual's relationship with god and IIRC specifically denies a hierarchical religion? anyway the caliphate was kind of like the papacy but ataturk got rid of that, which allows (in fact necessitates) that anyone who speaks about religion to claim moral authority when doing so like, there is literally no analogue to the church of england, Orthodox patriarchs, papacy, dalai lama etc, which becomes vry problematic when there is such a wide range of interpretation possible
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 04:59
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:Bullshit. Aside from the fact that Jesus specifically says that the Old Testament still applies, and aside from the history of Christianity, Jesus himself says that he comes to bring a sword. if you can provide a scripture reference i will believe you and admit that i am wrong
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:00
|
|
|
say what you want about christianity but at least the new testament is easy to interpret the koran intially says get drunk and drink lots of wine and have fun then mohammed changed his mind and said drink a little bit of wine but not too much then he changed it again and said dont drink any wine and all three of these sayings are in the koran
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:01
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:"...Jesus specifically says that the Old Testament still applies..." Matthew 5:18
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:03
|
|
|
Soag posted:yeah but the koran emphasises an individual's relationship with god and IIRC specifically denies a hierarchical religion? There are plenty of autonomous Christian religions though. The whole non-denominational movement works pretty much the same way.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
Soag posted:say what you want about christianity but at least the new testament is easy to interpret http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/by_name.html
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:05
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:I'd say this is probably less damning of Moslems and more damning of England. The Moslems I know from Australia don't really have any problems with gay people. Don't ignore the intersectionality at play here either - for the longest time, African Americans weren't too pleasant towards gays compared to their white counterparts either. I checked in with England, and, nope, this is much more damning of British Muslims. quote:No, Muslims are not the only homophobes among us. But the gap between them and the rest is startling. It’s zero percent of British Muslims vs. 58 percent of other Brits who say we are “acceptable.”
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:08
|
|
|
If I posted a study that said "In Australia, 58% of people think homosexuality is acceptable, but 0% of Liberal Party candidates do", you wouldn't say "Wow, that's pretty damning of Australia". You'd ask exactly what the gently caress is wrong with the culture of the Liberal Party in Australia.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Those On My Left posted:I checked in with England, and, nope, this is much more damning of British Muslims. But, like I said: why is this not the case here? Why is it not he case even in America? There's more going on here than just "Moslems hate teh gays"
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:09
|
|
|
Those On My Left posted:If I posted a study that said "In Australia, 58% of people think homosexuality is acceptable, but 0% of Liberal Party candidates do", you wouldn't say "Wow, that's pretty damning of Australia". You'd ask exactly what the gently caress is wrong with the culture of the Liberal Party in Australia. I would ask "What happened to the Liberals to make them this way? What forces of otherisation are preventing them from integrating?"
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:10
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:I would ask "What happened to the Liberals to make them this way? What forces of otherisation are preventing them from integrating?" yeah, I believe that post, it definitely properly reflects the attitude you've showed when previously addressing problems with the Libs and Nats, definitely, sure
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:14
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:I would ask "What happened to the Liberals to make them this way? What forces of otherisation are preventing them from integrating?" lol
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:15
|
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:Wow, so many racist, imperialist reactionaries in this thread, not like the embassy of old. At the end of the day, you don't have any right to say how people in other countries should live, and you support the racist, misogynist scum in our military more than a rag-tag bunch of people in another country fighting for their freedom against the slavery we would impose upon them. People who, because they share a name with a previous regime, must hold the exact same values (despite not having any real connection to that regime other than a shared name) because those brown savages.
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
ok BB i admit i was wrong and know less about christianity than i thought i did although it's a bit spurious to say that jesus calls unbelievers dogs, when he says that "dont feed dogs the children's bread from the table" in reference to healing a sick lady who he later heals anyway and "i come with a sword, to set father against son" is maybe a bit different to ""Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . [I]f they attack you put them to the sword. Thus shall the unbelievers be rewarded: but if they desist, God is forgiving and merciful. Fight against them until idolatry is no more and God's religion reigns supreme. But if they desist, fight none except the evil-doers"" anyway my mistake was comparisons to christianity, but i think there are institutional, historical, and scriptural factors in islam that mean there is the possibility of very violent intepretations of it, and therefore it's not a "religion of peace"
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:20
|
|
|
Those On My Left posted:pictured above, an example of brown blitzkrieg asking nuanced, thoughtful and compassionate questions about people he disagrees with, just as he is really 100% sure he'd do in the hypothetical I just posed It's the troll post that made me internet famous. You found it!* Soag posted:ok BB i admit i was wrong and know less about christianity than i thought i did Soag posted:and "i come with a sword, to set father against son" is maybe a bit different to ""Slay them wherever you find them. Drive them out of the places from which they drove you. Idolatry is worse than carnage. . . . [I]f they attack you put them to the sword. " You're right. It is worse to encourage children to commit patricide than to encourage people to kill others they don't know. Both are wrong and need to be purged from culture. I just wonder about how our attitudes about how other people need to reform add to the suffering of people who are already widely persecuted, or even whether or not you can reform a culture which is being persecuted and discriminated against, due to the innate human spirit of resistance to oppression. Is TOML suggesting that gays are more persecuted than Moslems? I'd disagree, and the general life-outcomes for each group should show why. *PS - Death to whites. BlitzkriegOfColour fucked around with this message at 05:32 on Aug 13, 2014 |
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:28
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 23, 2024 10:14 |
|
|
BlitzkriegOfColour posted:Is TOML suggesting that gays are more persecuted than Moslems? I'd disagree, and the general life-outcomes for each group should show why. no, I wasn't suggesting we play the oppression olympics. I was suggesting that when you said you would take a sensitive and gentle querying approach to the culture of the liberal party you were talking out your loving arse
|
|
#
?
Aug 13, 2014 05:38
|
|