starkebn posted:

what actually goes through the heads of people like ScoMo or Hockey while they sit at their desk? Is it just "I must gently caress the poors" because I can't see any other reason for the bullshit they keep spewing.

You Am I posted:

I'm thinking more of the cut away in Homer Simpson's head with an old black and white cartoon playing in his brain

Pickled Tink posted:

It is scapegoating and misdirection. They are generally friends with the wealthy and corporations for whom they have hosed the economy. Now that the economy is right proper hosed by decades of neoliberalism and the cracks are showing, they need someone to blame. They can't, obviously, tell the truth. That would upset their friends and make them look bad. So they scapegoat a section of the community instead. The poor are an easy target since they have very little voice and you can make an erroneous, though convincing, argument that they are responsible because THEY TAKE GUBBERMINT MONIES.

Recoome posted:

Nazis vs. Nazis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUggo3t5tvU

Recoome posted:

Nazis vs. Nazis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUggo3t5tvU

hooman posted:

hooman posted:

EDIT: That said though it is Scott "Torture Camps" Morrison so maybe I should be attributing to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.

You Am I posted:

I'm thinking more of the cut away in Homer Simpson's head with an old black and white cartoon playing in his brain

MysticalMachineGun posted:

That black and white cartoon depicting them loving the poor, of course

hooman posted:

I don't even know that it is. They may have just completely bought into Supply Side Economics and can't see the flaws with the policies that have been implemented, so there must be some problem somewhere else.

Birdstrike posted:

The tortoise symbolises the bourgeoisie.

hooman posted:

I don't even know that it is. They may have just completely bought into Supply Side Economics and can't see the flaws with the policies that have been implemented, so there must be some problem somewhere else. Since according to supply side the money that consumers have is meaningless then there clearly is a huge problem with all these poors getting money since it's just a big waste and doesn't actually achieve anything for the economy. I mean this is totally wrong, but it may not be a case of intentional misleading as much as being so submersed in trickle down they can't parse any ideas that aren't couched within that ideology.

Milky Moor posted:

'gently caress... ya dog' has got to be the most Chris Kenny insult

Serrath posted:

These ideas need to be opposed, obviously, because of the harm they do to society. But it doesn't benefit the debate to assume that these economic models just appeared one night in the minds of malevolent people wishing to punish the poor and infirm. The harm they cause the poor isn't the intended consequence though they do acknowledge it as a necessary evil in the pursuit of a greater good. It's a dangerous ideology but it's not especially mysterious or difficult to understand.

legstump posted:

I think for them it is also a moral issue although they would never admit it or perhaps even be aware of it. It is no coincidence so many tories are religious. For them the world is just: people who have money (like them) do so because they are good people (like them) and therefore deserve it all and an additional well-earned tax break. People who don't have money must be bad people who are being punished and to help them absolves them of their sin and allows them to continue their lifestyle of immorality, be it laziness, drug use, sexual deviance, whatever.

quote:

1. Government explains that we need to reduce the budget deficit. Which, of course, we do.

2. Government calls their own solution “reform”, because that suggests it is unquestionably worthy and good, and then insists this is, in fact, the only possible solution to the problem.

3. Government ignores alternative ideas to solve the same problem and berates opposition parties for “sabotaging” the budget and jeopardising the future if they don’t support the government’s proposed spending cuts.

4. Government chastises the voting public for enjoying now unaffordable benefits and for failing to comprehend the problem and for not backing the government’s policies to fix it.

5. Policies don’t pass the Senate. Nothing happens.

6. Repeat.

quote:

Here's how the story goes.

Labor, the Greens and the Nick Xenophon Team join forces to block the same-sex marriage plebiscite in the Senate.

Swayed by passionate lobbying from advocates, Malcolm Turnbull ditches the idea and opts for a free vote in Parliament. The Prime Minister is, after-all, a longstanding supporter of marriage equality. And he's on the record opposing the plebiscite. Rather than defeated, he is unshackled. Deep down he's happy it's gone this way.

Allowed to vote according to their consciences, a same-sex marriage bill passes both houses of Parliament. There are tears of joy on the Senate floor; gay and lesbian couples around the country hit the streets to celebrate. Within days newspapers are filled with touching photos of the first gay and lesbian Australians to legally marry.

The only problem: it won't happen this way. Almost certainly not. And anyone telling supporters of same-sex marriage otherwise is promoting a dangerous fantasy. A dream as empty as it is alluring.

A plebiscite may not be desirable and may not be fair. But it is the only realistic option for marriage equality in this term in Parliament.

To reject it means same-sex marriage is probably three years away, perhaps more. By the next election Labor will have a binding vote in favour of marriage equality, making it hard to convince the Coalition to support a free vote.

Notice how quiet Eric Abetz and Cory Bernardi have been lately? Supposedly in favour of a plebiscite, they are delighted to see it on death row. A proposal designed to delay and divide is doing exactly that. By losing, they win.

Meanwhile, their colleagues who back same-sex marriage are arguing strongly for the plebiscite. Look at Warren Entsch, Christopher Pyne, Tim Wilson. All would prefer a free vote, but they know how their party works. They know that on this issue the Liberal Party truly is a broad church, with perspectives ranging from outright opposition to strident support.

The Labor figures who say Turnbull is hostage to the internal politics of his party on this issue are dead right. Internal politics matter.

When Malcolm Turnbull seized the prime ministership last September he signed a written agreement with the Nationals setting out the terms of the Coalition arrangement. Part of that deal was sticking with Tony Abbott's plan for a plebiscite.

Turnbull then took the plebiscite to an election, promising Australians a say on the issue. And he won - albeit narrowly.

If Turnbull was to backflip on his policy and allow a free vote it would inflame the conservative wing of the party. So much that so that Turnbull's leadership itself could be at stake. Scott Morrison, Barnaby Joyce, George Christensen, Abbott and many more would argue that a fundamental election commitment had been broken. They wouldn't be wrong.

Furthermore, a precedent would be set. Of Shorten staring down Turnbull. Of Turnbull buckling. You folded on same-sex marriage, Labor would taunt him, so why not on a banking royal commission or an emissions trading scheme?

Former High Court judge Michael Kirby has argued persuasively that delaying same-sex marriage is a risk worth taking. He's explained that a plebiscite is constitutionally unnecessary and could unleash a wave of hatred against gays and lesbians.

He also acknowledges that he has been in a committed gay relationship for over 40 years and he and his partner don't know if they'd want to marry.

Other gay couples would dearly love to marry and are sick of waiting. Some would be willing to fight a plebiscite to do it.

It's a grim choice but one that must be made. Dreams of a different world - a world where the internal politics of the party in power don't matter - won't make it go away.

Recoome posted:

Nazis vs. Nazis

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUggo3t5tvU

Lid posted:

http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...829-gr3h78.html


splits

hooman posted:

Making this choice is an impossible one. I want gay marriage, I don't want a hate campaign against the LGBQ community. Turnbull gives you the choice of:

Hate Campaign and Gay Marriage
No Hate Campaign and No Gay Marriage

What the hell do you choose? It's a great wedge for the left because how do you make a choice between two evils. Personally I don't think you enable the Liberal party's bullshit so you vote against the plebiscite and do your best over this term of parliament to have it passed as a private members bill (if possible). On the other hand I can totally understand the argument "If this is what we have to do to get gay marriage lets get it over with".

open24hours posted:

This is letting them control the narrative, which is the last thing you want. If the plebiscite passes you'll never hear the end of how the Liberal party are the true progressives.

thatbastardken posted:

false choice, the hate campaign doesn't give you gay marriage either

thatbastardken posted:

false choice, the hate campaign doesn't give you gay marriage either

Solemn Sloth posted:

So now that Xenophon is opposing, all we need is for Labor to maintain a principled stance

quote:

Medical experts have reaffirmed that calcium is an 'important building block for healthy bones' in light of claims by celebrity chef Pete Evans that dairy removes calcium from bones.

Guardian Au posted:

Climate sceptic MP appointed chair of environment and energy committee
Liberal Craig Kelly will lead backbench committee that provides advice and feedback on legislation and policies

The climate sceptic Liberal MP Craig Kelly has been appointed chairman of the backbench environment and energy committee, with National party MP Kevin Hogan as secretary.

The committee will provide feedback on legislation and policies relating to the environment and energy, including to the minister, Josh Frydenberg.

Kelly served on the committee during the last parliament and previously invited climate sceptics to “balance” a presentation given by top climate scientists.

He has been writing on the issue for a number of years, noting that the convicts found it hotter in the 1700s.

“But I wonder if any of these people actually knew that Sydney’s so-called ‘record hot day’ on Tuesday 8th Jan this year [2013], that had them screaming “Global Warming”, was actually COOLER than the weather experienced by the convicts of the First Fleet in Sydney way back in the summer of 1790/91?” Kelly wrote.

He wrote on his Facebook page during the election campaign: “And with freezing temperatures and even snow forecast for Melbourne’s outskirts and in parts of New South Wales, I hope many of the warmists haven’t sold their coats.”

Hogan holds the marginal seat of Page on the New South Wales north coast. He has opposed coal seam gas development in his area.

The appointments were part of the political housekeeping required by the return of parliament after the election. The Coalition party room elected all the backbench committees and those with legislation to scrutinise met immediately to consider the bills.

Flanked by the deputy prime minister, Barnaby Joyce, and the deputy Liberal leader, Julie Bishop, Malcolm Turnbull addressed the joint party room when it reconvened after lunch for another meeting to consider policy issues such as the contentious superannuation changes.

West Australian Liberal Nola Marino has been reappointed as chief government whip along with South Australian Liberal Rowan Ramsey and Queensland Liberal Bert van Manen. Ramsey and van Manen replace Queensland Liberal Ewen Jones and Tasmanian Liberal Brett Whiteley, both of whom lost their seats in the election.

ewe2 posted:

2. The ACL demands to be funded for the No side, or at least make the government pay for a brochure that gives it equal time. No loving way. gently caress off you bigoted closet perverts.

Cartoon posted:

This is exactly what is the expected outcome.

Have the government fund 'both' sides of the 'argument'. Imagine if the pro female circumcision lobby demanded that they were given an equal voice... A more relevant example are climate deniers. Yes your fringe view should be given exactly the same weight as the mainstream scientific opinion. Oh and we should teach creationism alongside evolution as an equal alternative. This is such a common tactic surely it has a label by now.

Cartoon posted:

This is such a common tactic surely it has a label by now.

Cartoon posted:

This is exactly what is the expected outcome.

Have the government fund 'both' sides of the 'argument'. Imagine if the pro female circumcision lobby demanded that they were given an equal voice... A more relevant example are climate deniers. Yes your fringe view should be given exactly the same weight as the mainstream scientific opinion. Oh and we should teach creationism alongside evolution as an equal alternative. This is such a common tactic surely it has a label by now.

hooman posted:

Also lets not even get started on how loaded the question will be.
eg.
"Should marriage be between one man and one woman?"

quote:

Do you approve of a law to permit people of the same sex to marry?

Cartoon posted:

This is exactly what is the expected outcome.

Have the government fund 'both' sides of the 'argument'. Imagine if the pro female circumcision lobby demanded that they were given an equal voice... A more relevant example are climate deniers. Yes your fringe view should be given exactly the same weight as the mainstream scientific opinion. Oh and we should teach creationism alongside evolution as an equal alternative. This is such a common tactic surely it has a label by now.