Oceania ELECTION 04 - Who *will* win? (Official Discussion of 2004 Federal Election)

Really? I'd heard that he had accepted Labor's version of the FTA, though he was still going to push for his treasured PBS amendments etc. Well, whatever. I'm still split on the FTA, but I suppose it'll help the economy 'n' stuff.

 

I heard him yesterday on ABC News Radio saying that the Greens would reject the FTA legislation.

And as far as the FTA goes, it's far from perfect but most of the concerns - local content in media, PBS - are already protected by statute. It's an inherited principle of British constitutional law that any statute that contradicts a treaty, regardless of whether or not it was passed before or after the treaty, asserts legal primacy.

E_S

 

Well, the Greens are just continuing to ride the rampant anti-Americanism in Australian society to appeal to all the unwashed trendies out there. Nevermind the economic benefits we might secure. Not important.

 

Pfft, Americans are all teh evil teh stinrab havent you liek seen teh "FAHRENHEIT 9/11"?
E_S

 

Before the whole lame sarcasm angle came to incorporate the core of your arguementative style, I used to enjoy reading your usually thought-provoking posts. Please revert for a period of one week to this more esoteric Ender person so I may bask in nostalgia and make a paper-mache idol in your honour.

kthx.

 

Paper-mache idol?

Alright!!!


<waits patiently with e-Zippo in hand, dashingly hidden behind back...>

 

Enough out of you 44.

Well, I guess to appease PoT we should probably consider the statement delievered by the 43 prominent former diplomats and soldiers as well as Mr Turnbull's statements regarding his judgement of the war in Iraq.

Turnbull Story

Group of 43 story.

Now, on the issue of Iraq; I supported the war, but not for the casus belli. But it is indeed emerging that much of the pre-war groundwork may have been - and I am giving the benefit of doubt here - off the mark.

The question I would ask of you guys is this; the Government clearly can't say "mea culpa" as intelligence is a speculative game at the very best, but what needs to be done of them in your eyes? Surely the positive cost/expenditure ratio in terms of benefits to Iraqis vs Australian lives lost would at the least neither condemn to praise the action in Iraq?

I would like to know what specifically people have expected of the intelligence services, and what they expect now of the government?

E_S

 

I don't know...I think that's more Gath's realm...

John Laws rocks! However, I don't like Alan Jones... people seem to forget that he was arrested in a public toilet in England... I wonder why that was so?

Mark 'Chopper' Read famously retorted this question to Mr. Jones after he attacked the personal 'credibility' of old uncle Chop Chop.

 

The Liberal Party does what it thinks is best for Australia, and it's economic focus is of fiscal conservatism. It doesn't like unbalanced budgets, unchecked Federal growth or unnecessary expenditure. They'd rather ween you off the government teat and that's why they sell infrastructure off from state hands, because they want people to make money for themselves. They want people to be responsible for themselves, which is why they favour superannuation over pensions. The ALP believes more in the welfare state than merely a safety net and is content to have a larger Federal structure that serves at the interest of it's constituents. They support things like pensions because they believe it's a responsibility of the state to provide for it's citizens equally.

Ender_Sai, that is one of the best summaries I have read which describes the differences between Australia's two major political parties. Congrats! That is why I now consider myself a Liberal voter... I believe in personal responsibility / individualism, and not seeking a hand out and blaming other people for your own faults, problems, etc...

 

Who *will* win?

The Silly Party will win!!!

 

Ah you mean the Standing-At-The-Back-Dressed-Stupidly-And-Looking-Stupid Party?

Vincent Hanna: Quite. Now; Ivor Biggun, no votes at all for the Standing-At-The-Back- Dressed-Stupidly-And-Looking-Stupid Party. Are you disappointed?

Ivor Biggun: Ah, no, not really, no... I always say, "If you can't laugh, what *can* you do?" Ha-ha-ha-ha (squirts Hanna with flower).

Vincent Hanna: ...take up politics, perhaps. Has your party got any policies?

Ivor Biggun: Oh yes, certainly! We're for the compulsory serving of asparagus at break- fast, free corsets for the under-fives, and the abolition of slavery.

Vincent Hanna: Now; you see, many moderate people would respect your stand on asparagus, but what about this extremist nonsense about abolishing slavery?

Ivor Biggun: Oh, we just put that in for a joke! See you next year!

E_S

 

I am utterly disgusted at the passing of the same sex marriage ban in parliament. I used to think, without a doubt, that Australia was the best country in the world. This growing conservatism has eroded a lot of national pride I had. What kind of country is Australia turning into?

I really hope it goes to the High Court to get struck down for being discriminatory. Honestly, what a sad, sad day.

 

I agree. But are you surprised though? With Costello going on about Christian values in this multi-cultural and multi-religious country of ours, and Howard claiming he was protecting the sanctity of marriage? Is that the reason for not passing it? I'm curious as to how they have justified this stance. It can?t be a religious reason.

Check this out: http://users.bigpond.net.au/gbaird-SONGRISE/rsm/Laura/doclaura.html

 

Anyone tell me why on earth Bob Brown is still a Senator?

Ender_Sai, I often wonder this myself. He only gets elected because of proportional voting. Same for his other colleague from bizarro-land, Kerry Nettles. I was offended, angry and embarrassed when they immaturely interrupted Bush in his address to the joint sitting of Federal Parliament.

I hate it how someone who in ther personal and professional life who represents a *very* small minority (homosexual, loony far left) can influence decisions for the whole of the country. Do you really see this as an effective measure of checks and balances? I hate it how often in this country, the minutely small minority can often hold the majority to ransom.

I had to laugh out loud when Bob Brown was outside of Parliament when Bush was here. He was on a bullhorn, screaming that the further $86 billion that Congress approved for the Iraq effort be given to the children of the world. While that is a noble idea, why not you hypocrite, start with yourself as an example. As a Senator, Mr. Brown would earn at *least* $100k, more than double of what the average Australian worker earns. So why not give at least $50k to charity, let your actions speak for your words.

People like Bob Brown, Kerry Nettles, Peter Garret, majority of the ALP (well, mainly the extreme loony-left faction), brainwashed militant left-wing university students, professional protesters all belong in the same bracket as Peter Hoare... serial pests.

I find it highly amusing that these kinds of people all beleive that the world should be a Star Trek type utopia, with the forced multiculturalism and melting pots, all holding hands and singing koombaya... whilst idealism is great, this is not reality.

 

I am utterly disgusted at the passing of the same sex marriage ban in parliament. I used to think, without a doubt, that Australia was the best country in the world. This growing conservatism has eroded a lot of national pride I had. What kind of country is Australia turning into?

See also: Utilitarianism.

I agree. But are you surprised though? With Costello going on about Christian values in this multi-cultural and multi-religious country of ours, and Howard claiming he was protecting the sanctity of marriage? Is that the reason for not passing it? I'm curious as to how they have justified this stance. It can?t be a religious reason.

Oh for crying out loud...

Please, before you go confusing us with the United States of America or the Republic of France or for that matter any other secular republic with a bill of rights, I would suggest you do *some* research first. It saves me having to do things like this.

[cheesy voice-over]Australia is officially an Anglican country. That's right, as a member of the British Commonwealth, our head of state also happens to the head of the Anglican Church![/cheesy voice over]

Now...

There currently exists no sound reason I am aware of for banning gay marriages. I am aware of objections, (and if any of you dare use "homophobia" as a kneejerk reactionary label, I'm sending Mary Cheney over to kick your ass), and most of them aren't really that logical.

It does however need to be said that at this stage there remains no impetus towards the recognition of same-sex marriages within society. I don't think people are homophobic, but just ambivalent. And like 'em or hate 'em, the elected officials are supposed to represent the will of the majority, which thus far does not support gay rights. Which I would say is sad, but I'm far more inclined towards Benthamite-utilitarianism than I am for gay and lesbian rights, if for nothing else than I simply don't care for people's personal lives.

So before we twist ourselves into ideological pretzels trying to come up with a string of contemptuous adjectives for the government and opposition, consider that very frankly, they are doing their job. You can't fight the inevitable tide of social evolution, and yes one day gay marriage will be realised...


..just not today.

E_S

 

BTW, I'm still waiting for the guys ragging on the anti-gay marriage position to have a go at Latham, who said he wouldn't support it any time soon. Since, by your (only IMHO fallacious) logic, Howard = homophobe for his opposition, then is not Latham the same? Or was I right, that Aussies may not want it?

Ender_Sai, you are completely correct in this instance, Aussies do NOT want it.

The last time I recall, I was a citizen of the Commonwealth of Australia, and I voted for Australians to lead us, to make laws for Australia.

I am neither a citizen of the UN, vote for the UN's leaders, nor want the UN to make laws governing my life.

Hear Hear!

See, the problem I have with the UN is that the Big Five, the permanents, have that power. I support the UN fully except with regards to this clause. It annoys me when the UNSC can't condemn Israeli actions, and possibly bring about some moderation in their frequent incursions into the insane, because America vetos, and it annoys me that France and Russia would have voted against a new UNSC Resolution because they made alot of money off Saddam's regime.

Ender_Sai, I totally agree.

This sums up my probelm, disdain and comtempt for the planets two attempts at 'World Governance', ie: the League of Nations and the United Nations. Both born like a pheonix from the ashes of war. The victorious countries rule (ie: Big 5 in the UN). The Left dream that we will all live happily ever after under the auspicies of the UN, holding hands with flowers in our hair until we eventually reach a uptopian state such as the Federation in Star Trek. Dream on... this will not happen, well not in our or or kids or grandkids lifetimes.

What is wrong with Nationalism???

Which is why it is a travesty that the media is not reporting and showing us stuff about things such as new schools opening in Iraqi, their growing economy and business sector, successful local Iraqi elections, etc. Then people might start to understand things a bit better. Instead, all we get is scandal after scandal trying to catch the Western Governments with their pants down.

I agree wholeheartedly. Why however, has the 'Tall Poppy Syndrome' spread beyond the shores of Australia to all other Western Countries. Why do our own media enjoy attacking our own countries???

So you like your leaders fickle?

The ALP now wants to ban the advertising of any products which are basically fatty, including high-sugar drinks, during 'childrens TV time.'

Anyone agree with this?

I don't, for two reasons. Firstly, when a kid sees an ad for Maccas, they're not going to buy the McDonalds; they're going to ask their parents to buy it. So it's the parents who are allowing the fattening of kids. Two, do we need a government parenting for us?

E_S

Ender_Sai, I totally agree. This country is on the fast track away from individualism, ie: people taking personal responsibility for themselves, and rather blame people for their own actions.

But what angers me most about this E_S, is that once again, Latham is unoriginal, and has to be firstly populist, and borrow from other people. First he copied a Clinton speech, and now he is borrowing policy from the British Blair Government, who has recently introduced this legislation about advertising fast food during childrens TV hours.

Is it just me or does all this anti-Latham muck raking that's going on at the moment reflect poorly on the government? It makes the Libs look desperate to my eyes.

So, Uruk-Hai... are you saying that the Liberal Party controls the Packer owned channel 9, thus made the Sunday program run the doco on Latham? Or is the Liberal Party forcing Latham's ex-wife to come up with these allegations? Or is the Liberal Party forcing ex-Liverpool Councillors to tell their tale?

I also bet you lefties didn't complain when the past of former Governor General Hollingworth was investigated! Personally, I am glad he was, and glad he is gone.

When our troops go to war, it is ALWAYS a fail

 

[cheesy voice-over]Australia is officially an Anglican country. That's right, as a member of the British Commonwealth, our head of state also happens to the head of the Anglican Church![/cheesy voice over]

You misunderstand what I said. I know we're 'officially' an Anglican country. Officially or not, our country is still muliti-religious, yes? I said it couldn't be a religious reason because there are so many things in the bible which are ignored today that taking the stance that gay marrages are not allowed in the bible is not valid. That was all I was saying.

 

"Or was I right, that Aussies may not want it?"

In a stunning victory for the status quo, the vast majority of Australians who do not want same-sex marriage legislation passed will be dead in the next 20yrs of old age. But only after the Government has had it's way with their superannuation.

 

Ender_Sai is correct, a vast vast majority of Australians do NOT want gay marriage recognized, just as in the USA. It is dissappointing that the small vocal militant extreme left wing liberals try and force down their agenda's down the throats of the silent majority.

I am actually angry at the silent majority... just wish they were silent no longer, and no longer apathetic. I am sick of the fractional minute minority forcing their warped ideals on the rest of the nation.

Marriage, for the past few thousand years or so, has ALWAYS been between a MAN and a WOMAN. Why all of a sudden, after thousands of years, does a minute minority try and have to change things? Some people might see this as politically incorrect humour, but I am calling a spade a spade. God created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve.

 

I'm not even getting into this.
I wrote this message 4 times and I would have banned for every one.

Welcome back Gath.

 

I said it couldn't be a religious reason because there are so many things in the bible which are ignored today that taking the stance that gay marrages are not allowed in the bible is not valid. That was all I was saying.


Oh, I see. Right.

Well, when has knee-jerk social conservatism necessarily been logical or consistent?

The question of the justice of allowing same sex-marriage is a no-brainer, certainly. I've been involved in the debates in the Senate about the matter and there's not a single rational arguement to counter gay marriage; but there are some legitimate concerns. For example, if a Church refused to perform the ceremony on religious grounds, would they be protected from antidiscrimation legislation, or would they essentially have beliefs forced upon them?

I think that greater public debate would be needed before we visit the idea, because it's not that people are inherently anti-gay, it's just not a high agenda issue for them.

I have really mixed feelings about the legislation that just passed. I don't know what to make of it at the moment; but then again the ALP and L/NP were both behind it...

Oh, it's an election year, of course!

E_S

 

I am not anti-gay, neither am I pro-gay. Actually I have a half-brother who is homosexual. Nontheless, I just don't support the minority push to change an institution that has been around for thousands of years. If it aint broke, don't fix it, as the old saying goes.

However, I don't have a problem at ALL with civil unions, etc... equal rights for partners, etc... just don't support the notion of homosexual marriage. That has always been between a man and a woman.

 

Minor point; it's not changing the institution so much as the perception of the institution. Polygamy for instance would change the institution by making it more than a union of two; but all gay marriage would do is make marriage a union of two people, rather than a union of a man and woman specifically. Moreover, it's not like this minority change will threaten or ruin marriage, any more than say we heterosexuals have been doing for oh a quarter-century or more.

E_S

 

I am actually angry at the silent majority... just wish they were silent no longer, and no longer apathetic. I am sick of the fractional minute minority forcing their warped ideals on the rest of the nation.

Marriage, for the past few thousand years or so, has ALWAYS been between a MAN and a WOMAN. Why all of a sudden, after thousands of years, does a minute minority try and have to change things? Some people might see this as politically incorrect humour, but I am calling a spade a spade. God created Adam and Eve, NOT Adam and Steve.

You have said pretty much the same thing before. At least your views towards this have remained static. In answer to why this "minute minority" is trying to change things: maybe because society (at least the last time I checked) has become more accepting, and (at least where i live) the bible and all of God's wonderful ways don't hold sway as they once did over what everyone does and thinks.
Yes, I'm sorry if people find that offensive, but I'll say right now that I am an athiest (and my girlfriend is a heathen ) and I find much of what is in the bible offensive.
So, I'll continue. I am of the belief that yes, I think if people who are of the same sex want to get married, why can't they? Believe me, being homosexual has nothing to do with your upbringing, and nothing to do with choice. So, as this is the case (IMO), why should people be denied something that should be a right because of something that they cannot help?

Oh, that's right. Because of that wonderful bible upon which most laws and legislation have been passed. Including this most recent one: passed by an old git who supposedly knows what the majority of Australians want (or is it the majority of his voters; most of which are middle age and upwards?), and Latham - who I have absolutely no faith in whatsoever as a national leader.

Just my views on a topic that has reared its head again. You may find what I have said offensive, or you may disagree with it, but like many people in this thread (and threads like it) I am just posting my views.
I find it disgusting that this sort of view still exists in a society like Australia...

IMO.

 

Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve, right Gath?

I'm disgusted at both major parties for supporting this move, to be honest. I'm fully aware that a very large number of Australians are against gay marriage, but government has never been about giving the people whatever they want. At least, not when what they want isn't what the government wants. Surely it would be one of the roles of the government to ensure a fair and safe society for all Australian citizens, is it not? I hardly think that banning homosexuals from entering into marriage - civil or religious - and, more practically, the legal entitlements that such a union entails, is fair. Mind you, this wouldn't even be an issue if it wasn't an election year...