|
Solemn Sloth posted:I can't find a news article yet but Buzzfeed are claiming on Twitter that Shorten is speaking out against the NSW Greyhound ban "You don't get rid of everyone's livelihood overnight with no warning. Not everyone in the industry is a villain - Shorten on Greyhound ban." Alice Workman tweeted that. Nothing incorrect about that statement if its accurate. It's buzzfeed so.. you know... high chance it isn't.
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 02:38
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
Frogmanv2 posted:I trust buzzfeed more than I trust news corpse Because their lies reflect your world view, like news corp lies reflect the conservative world view.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 02:54
|
|
|
Vladimir Poutine posted:Yeah, I don't really understand that argument. If a "livelihood" exclusively has negative repercussions does it actually deserve to exist? I said it last time, greyhound owners aren't horse owners. They're not millionaires, they're generally living in the outer semi-rural areas of Sydney/Melbourne with not a lot of cash to rub together. So cutting their only form of income with no support is a typical Liberal idea. The attitude of posters in here are why the Greens are called Tree Tories. If it's not an industry they support, gently caress em, let them rot. Who cares about the impact it will have on families who rely in winnings from greyhound racing to survive. Kill the industry, but do it right.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 03:10
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:What an utterly bullshit argument. quote:Kill the industry, but do it right. Can we get a new thread made? One where you can link every issue to refugees instead of crapping this one up with the same old poo poo? WAIT SOMEONE IS TALKING ABOUT ANOTHER POLICY, QUICK! the circle jerk posted:SOMETHINGSOMETHING REFUGEES! the circle jerk 2 posted:Great post, something refugees. torture.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 03:44
|
|
|
Lid posted:Labor must've got it in their head their avenue to government is western S You all seem to not actually have read what Alice Workman tweeted. You've just made up what Shorten said and made it bigger than it actually was.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 03:48
|
|
|
Lid posted:No its pretty accurate to Luke Foley Soooo, why are we talking about Federal issues (asylum seekers) and Federal leaders (Turnbull) when talking about Greyhound banning (a state issue).
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 03:58
|
|
|
Has this Shorten quote appeared anywhere of note yet? Nothing on SMH as far as I can see or the Guardian.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 04:03
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:Um please point out any mention or even insinuation of Australia's refugee policy in my rebuttal of your entire point from a number of directions. quote:Kill the industry, but do it right. You didn't others did. I didn't need to respond to your "rebuttal" because you didn't read past the first sentence. Read the last one, I quoted it again when I responded to your post and added it for you again here. edit: At no point have I argued for keeping the Greyhound industry open. You've created an argument that doesn't exist. You got hard, did a bunch of googlefu and posted up a heap of information for nothing. I want the industry closed, but posters here and the Liberals in NSW are of the view that we should just shut it down, don't support the people who currently rely on it. It's a completely legal profession, like all industry closures it needs to be managed well. Something posters in here and the Liberals in NSW don't think is important because they don't like the people who are in the industry. EvilElmo fucked around with this message at 04:21 on Aug 2, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 04:16
|
|
|
Cartoon posted:
Feel free to keep doing that. Just maybe use it for a time when you're actually arguing with someone, rather than arguing against your own created argument.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 2, 2016 05:41
|
|
|
So I still can't find the Bill Shorten "quote" that Buzzfeed were spreading on twitter appear anywhere else. I would have thought that kind of line was worthy of reporting, but it seems not. Have any of you seen it pop up elsewhere?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 01:26
|
|
|
Jonah Galtberg posted:Yes, out of everything else in the news today this is the hot button issue worth spending this much energy pursuing  The benefit of forums, you can talk about multiple things at the same time. It was a hot issue yesterday, many posters on here got raging hardons as it was further evidence of how fukt the ALP were. So just checking to see if it was another made up buzzfeed tweet or if someone had actually reported on it. I'm sure how excited posters got about it yesterday they would be following it closely.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 3, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
open24hours posted:What happens if the guy actually is ineligible? State parliament replaces him with someone. This is normally someone from the same party.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 4, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
Lid posted:At TAFE in a first class on journalism we were asked what did we want to write about. Ben Grubb?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 9, 2016 05:22
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Looks like Labor and the Coalition are going to screw over the Greens and the crossbench on the 6 year senate terms. You mean by doing the same thing that's happened every other time?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 08:37
|
|
|
Starshark posted:I see you've got your talking points from HQ, so let's hear the justification! Really? That's the quality of response now. "YOU GOT YOUR LINES FROM HQ! Hurrrr" Get hosed. Also, if you read my post, you'll see I provided the answer to your question. Here it is again. EvilElmo posted:You mean by doing the same thing that's happened every other time? Recoome posted:Here comes forums poster EvilElmo to tell us how great it is that Labor are working with the Coalition You're the one who always attacked the ALP when they work with the Liberals as though it's a horrible thing to do. Unless the Greens are voting with the Liberals, then there are reasons and they're all valid and legitimate. Like when they voted down an ETS. Or voted for the Senate reform that had major problems, and resulted in more One Nation Senators to be elected (2 are from the 'reforms'). It would also appear that posters in here would prefer the One Nation Senators as well as Hinch, Day and Leyonhjelm to serve 6 year terms so they can keep Rhiannon in for 6 years? Seems like a good trade to me! I would have thought you would have preferred to roll her in 3 rather than 6 years. EvilElmo fucked around with this message at 08:57 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 08:52
|
|
|
Starshark posted:That should go over well with the voters who are leaving your party for the minors. You're very good at getting the message out. How many seats did you lose at the last election?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 09:00
|
|
|
tithin posted:Elmo I don't give a gently caress about the greens but can you please stop jumping to the rescue whenever someone mocks labour because it shits up the thread something chronic Give it another few posts and someone will inevitably say "somethingsomething torture", the circle jerk will restart itself.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 09:01
|
|
|
Recoome posted:yeah sorry torture is totally cool and good right? I mean it's a great punchline and I'm glad Labor take such a hard stance against it Took 3 posts. Doctor Spaceman posted:Being consistently unfair isn't a virtue. I'm not sure how it's unfair. Both systems have their benefits, both systems will have "losers". In this result, it will get rid of 3 racists, a bigot and two nuts. The Greens should rejoice. You'll get rid of Rhiannon early and pick up another Senator. Senate Reforms are the reason we got 2/4 racists in the Senate. I said they were poo poo, they are poo poo. I'm not sure how many times I need to keep posting this. One day you might all admit the Senate reforms were rushed, poo poo policy and not well thought through. But I guess you all still defend voting down the ETS.. EvilElmo fucked around with this message at 09:07 on Aug 12, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 09:05
|
|
|
Recoome posted:oh wait sorry the ALP are torture apologists as well woooooops Was I wrong though? I'll post something about whatever the issue that's being discussed, Medicare, taxation, greyhounds.. whatever. A few posts later "somethingsomething torture! ALP SCUM!". Every. Single. Time.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 09:12
|
|
|
Recoome posted:lmao yep this is the only reason why we got the One Nation people Like, no it really is. We got 2 from the DD because of the smaller quota. Then another 2 from the Senate reforms. It would appear you want all 4 of the One Nation Senators to run out the full 6 years though.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 09:14
|
|
|
Doctor Spaceman posted:Antony Green's got an article on it. Interesting article, will read on a not-Friday night. But there will be winners and losers, would I be on board if it wasn't going to result with 3 One Nation Senators staying full term? Maybe. Then it would be whatever. Slightly different changes that would probably be reversed in the election outcome anyway. But to get rid of 3 One Nation, Day, Leyonhjelm and Hinch? gently caress what's apparently fair, they can all go. Hinch might get back up, Leyonhjelm and Day probably won't. At best 1 One Nation, if they don't meltdown in the next 2-3 years. I haven't gone through the numbers, it will require a fair bit of digging and frankly, I don't care enough. Antony Green might do an article on it which would be great.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 09:22
|
|
|
Recoome posted:I too blame The ALP™ at every opportunity for everything ever Fixed. Big Willy Style posted:EE a few months ago im pretty sure you were saying that the Senate reforms would kill minor parties now you're saying its responsible for the election of minor parties while ignoring the results of the DD. Are you OK m8? Correct, I and many other people commented that this would be the death of minor parties. The Greens had effectively pulled up the ladder behind them. As it turns out, it's had the opposite effect. The Green vote flatlined and hasn't gained any ground in the Senate (losing a senator in the process). People have instead decided to put their vote towards fringe parties where before they would have voted #1 for a major and we would have got a balanced, normal, workable Senate. This Senate will be difficult for anyone to work through and legislation does need to be passed, but at what cost? Do we want a budget through in return for a Senate inquiry into Islam? Doctor Spaceman posted:(In case you missed my previous post, given the parallel responses) Aside from Hanson the ONP Senators got 11th (WA), 11th (NSW) and 12th (Queensland), so I think it's unlikely they'd get full terms unless you literally pull them out of the hat. Then I go back to what I said. I don't really care about the differences between the two methods. The changes are so minor. Hinch out/Liberal in. Green out/Labor in. That could happen at an election anyway.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 12, 2016 09:33
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:But we need to ignore it so that we can win elections, think of all the Australians being harmed by Liberal policy! Greens policy on this issue is so successful, they lost ground at this election. Oh.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 00:05
|
|
|
ZombyDog posted:Oh no, policy that isn't raping children in offshore hellholes isn't popular with the electorate, we should abandon it in favour of more child raping because that's where the votes are. Wait, in earlier threads posters in here kept saying how popular Greens policies were when you actually talked to people about them. This included offshore detention. Because as mentioned earlier, it seems the only thing these threads talk about. That and making poo poo up/reposting some unfounded claim on twitter as fact then getting all riled up about it. So, is the Greens policy on offshore detention popular with the electorate or have posters finally accepted reality?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Are you seriously equating how popular a policy is with how good it is?? I don't think I said that anywhere. No, I re-read that post, doesn't appear to be there. Feel free to highlight the section where I said that. Something I have said many times is the average Green voter likes to think they hold mainstream views, that the public broadly support them and if it wasn't for unions/corporations/dodgy donations they would be able to form Government with a huge majority. But that isn't the reality, as I've also said many times 20% (+?13%) of Green voters think the Liberal approach is either too soft, or spot on. As we saw this election, the heat/interest in this issue is dropping off. The Guardian posted their latest leaks at the wrong time, there is the Census thing that more people are talking about. Hell I think in this thread more time has been spent talking about the Census than about the leaks. Popular policy != good policy. But if you want to get elected, you need to have some popular policies and clearly explain other more contentious policies. The Greens have had a long time now to win the argument on asylum seekers, but they can't even convince 20+13% of their own base. Recoome posted:Like this is prob going to sound weird to someone who is a die-hard ALP supporter but some times people have these things called "ethics" and "principles", which are kind of like self-imposed guidelines which inform behaviour and positions towards things. These may not be popular or translate into nice little soundbites but basically, in this case, people are opposing systematic torture of refugees and First Australians because it goes against ethics and principles of human equality and justice. 20+13% of the Green voters support. EvilElmo fucked around with this message at 01:56 on Aug 13, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 01:51
|
|
|
Aesculus posted:Reading: Hard. Recoome posted:Are you seriously equating how popular a policy is with how good it is?? Hmmm. Nope, no mention of popular policy = good policy there. So yeah, reading: hard. Just, not for me.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 01:56
|
|
|
Recoome posted:Ummmm we aren't talking about the abuse of refugees here? Is this the unfounded claim on Twitter? Like, feel free to find that previous posting where I basically state something. Because I'm pretty sure I've only said that this policy is popular so if you want to stand a chance of forming Government you need to be on board with it. Pretty sure I've said that many times, which pisses off the Greens in here because they're of the view you can somehow form Government with a policy the majority of Australian's don't want and feel passionate about in marginal seats. Sorry, I'm bringing up unrelated things into the discussion, I thought that was allowed here. Since we pivot so well from Medicare to boats every other time. Or is that only allowed by the circle jerk?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 13, 2016 02:03
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:Feel like this is soft on homelessness personally, can't we like, institutionally torture them? 8 posts. New record for these threads.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 08:08
|
|
|
To clarify, that was probably a record for the longest time it's taken to go from one topic to linking it back to torture as a joke.
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 09:36
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:modern liberalism is cool Solemn Sloth posted:Torture isn't a joke, something which your australian labor party would do well to learn imho Which one is it guys? Solemn Sloth posted:Feel like this is soft on homelessness personally, can't we like, institutionally torture them? Not an attempt at humor? Was sloth saying honestly we should institutionally torture homeless people?
|
|
#
¿
Aug 19, 2016 09:42
|
|
|
Where is Bandt/McGowen? They both gone home?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Probably this one Hmm. Can't see them on the feed, so they must have gone home. Done a hard dash to the airport. Pretty amateur by the Greens all things considered. Cathy has more of an excuse, not as experienced as the Greens should be. Now, which crossbencher flaked on this last vote.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 10:03
|
|
|
Seagull posted:What are the votes on? Moving towards a motion that there should be an RC. The one that was in the Senate earlier today. Takes a few procedures for it to happen. Nothing major, would embarrass the Government, but not bind it to anything. But would be a real blow to the leadership team that they let it happen.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 10:09
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Awww did the poor widdle major party forget to fill the Greens in on its special plans? Diddums. Like, I mean you could say that. But the reality is they didn't have good discipline if after the events earlier in the afternoon (418pm vote called, PM/DPM and a few other Libs didn't make the vote, Labor/Crossbench lost by 2 votes) they didn't hang around until the final vote of the day. It's the same poor discipline from the Liberal's that ended up costing them 3 votes in the lower house. It's not up to the ALP to tell the Greens how to run their team, but if the Whip in the Greens didn't see this as a possibility and tell Bandt to get a slightly later flight, they need to be replaced (like Pyne).
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 10:34
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:News flash, champ. They're not in the same party. The ALP has to convince the Greens its in their interest, not the other way around. I'm sure you'll also be sending a very strongly worded email to McGowan to remind her where her independent sympathies should lie. Gosh imagine what you could achieve with cooperation. Bandt should have hung around to see what happened, I would assume the Greens would vote with the ALP in calling for the Government to hold a RC into the Banking sector. I thought the Greens in here had a hardon saying that "WE ASKED FOR IT FIRST!" when it came to a RC into banking. Instead, he ran to the airport to get the early flight home before Parliament wrapped up for the week. An extra hour wouldn't have killed him. Hell, he could have flown back to Canberra and made in into the chamber in time for the final votes. As I said, this was poor whipping by the Greens. Can't see how that statement is incorrect. Your only member in the lower house, the only house where the vote really matters in snap motions, was on a flight home when a majority Government lost a vote for the first time in (?) ~40 years. It's poor whipping, they should have made sure he stuck around. The Liberals didn't know what was going to happen tonight, yet their whips and Pyne (apparently) told them to hang around just in case.
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 13:43
|
|
|
V for Vegas posted:OMG it gets better - Christensen was whipping the vote Nationals chief whip. I think all the nats were in the chamber, so hard to blame him. AFAIK, it was Keenan, Dutton (LNP but I think sits in Liberal party room federally), Christian Porter and Craig Kelly. WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Maybe it's payback for Labor's shiftiness on the same-sex marriage bill? Don't know. *shrug* Labor were talking about getting SSM through from opposition since election night. Can't really call it shifty. But if the Greens thought this was a masterstroke and taught Labor a lesson, I don't think they had the result they were expecting and probably better to just have Bandt in his office to see if their plan to punish Labor worked. If it looked like it wasn't going to work, he strolls in and votes. EvilElmo fucked around with this message at 13:50 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 13:48
|
|
|
asio posted:Lol smdh at the idea of a "party whip" in the glorious revolution. Solidarity comes from within, greens are too busy poaching alp support in the community to bother with overpaid, white circlejerks You know the Greens have a whip right? Solemn Sloth posted:Noted labor supporter gets frothy about parliamentary support for whips What? Can someone translate this shitpost for me? I mean, feel free to defend Bandt for going home early instead of being part of something historic. Like I mean, his vote would have only meant the Speaker would have had to cast a vote in the final votes. The Speaker would traditionally have to cast his vote with the ALP/Crossbench to keep the debate going rather than to end it. This would have given Bandt time to talk about the need for an RC. It would have also put a lot more pressure on the Government, Turnbull and Pyne. Or the Speaker would have gone against tradition (unlikely, this Speaker actually seems to be taking it seriously) and that would have been a big story as well. EvilElmo fucked around with this message at 14:15 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 14:09
|
|
|
ewe2 posted:Suck it, princess. Is it the Greens fault for not having members in the chamber during a vote? Yes. Is it the Liberal/Nationals fault for not having members in the chamber during a vote? Yes. The ALP isn't responsible for Bandt to do his job. Comstar posted:Why is it apparently very common for rep's to leave and go home early? How many went home early, 6, or more? If Bandt and McGowen had stuck around like it's their job to, we could have got an even more embarrassing fiasco for Turnball and Co. They should have been there, and I haven't seen any response to why they weren't? Only common during a 'normal' Parliament where there is a clear majority. Nobody left during the ALP minority Government until the final vote. It's basically because after QT if there are no votes scheduled or you don't have a speaking slot, you may as well go home. But a 1 vote majority, isn't a regular Parliament. The Government won't go home early again and neither will Bandt or McGowan. They got too comfortable. EvilElmo fucked around with this message at 22:31 on Sep 1, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 22:27
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 16, 2024 08:08 |
|
|
iajanus posted:Not quite sure why the loving ministers aren't forced to stay in the chamber whilst in session anyway I know everyone in here must defend the Greens and they can do no wrong. But this is why everyone who wasn't in the chamber for the vote last night hosed up. It isn't a majority Government. 1 LNP too drunk to turn up, gone home early, sick, whatever, and you can push things through the lower house. If that was Labor's SSM bill being discussed last night, would you have defended Bandt for going home early and being the reason it wasn't passed?
|
|
#
¿
Sep 1, 2016 22:34
|
|