Jerry_Atrick

I didn't say political parties.. I said politics

Sorry about typos on last post.. phones and I are not friends.. but fiends

In great American words: dude, stop digging.. How on earth wad Biden's government depotism.. and what does that have to do with socialism.. and remind me who tried to steal the election, which is, if I am not mistaken, an act of depotism? What were the protectors protesting about? The rightful transfer of power after a constitutionally legal election that the one they were supporting lost? And it is somehow a defence that a few shit stirrers started something and they, of their own free will joined in? Forgive me, but you are delusional with this and I don't believe your claimed aversion to both sides iof politics..

I am not saying a free for all.. finding the balance is difficult, but letting the pendulum swing too far either way can be just as damaging. Gareth has stated evidence and opinion drawn from that evidence. I don't agree entirely with his opinion and I think his evidence is flawed in terms of migration to Australia, or having those already in Australia go home. He has also stated that not all Muslims are terrorists or violent. In fact he states most are peaceful. He is saying however the risks of importing terrorism or violent behaviour is high. This is very different to wanton hate speech and vilification. It allows a debate of an issue, perceived or otherwise, based an assertion of on the surface valid facts. Wanting hate, disinformation, and bilufication should have consequences. This does not appear to be one of those posts. Hope that clear it up

Gon.. I think you've gon a little off piste... Remind me of where the constitution bans a socialist government? Remind me what is socialism and how the Biden government is socialism. Remind me where in the constitution it is OK to commit felonies because someone didn't like an election result. And remind me where in the constitution where the government has become unconstitutional before it has taken office after legitimately winning a constitutional election in accordance with the law? And remind me of just how many court cases were taken to mainly republican nominated judges including those appointed by Trump alleging electoral interference in favour of the democrats that weren't thrown out for lack of evidence. Or how many of those lawyers capitulated and agreed to cooperate with the prosecutors when put in fron of a grand jury on conspiracy charges.. or two every high porfile lawyers that lost their licenses for misconduct - all representing Trump and his henchmen in these cases. Or the one person who was taped trying to get the Governor of Georgia to "find" was it 14,000 more votes? Quite, who was trying to become the unconstitutional government, again?

Yes, this is about defunding the ABC, but I would like to get back to the question of why this article is imbalanced based on the assertion that Again, can someone point me to where the dead man's family is angry the innocent party is not being prosecuted? Can someone point to me to where it is clear the innocent family is being muzzled in all this? Just BS to justify a position I call. Although, the article could have mentioned whether or not it contacted the innocent member's family for a comment, I guess.

I am really don't understand what risk you are referring to.. Seriously... Just saying we are running the risk means nothing to me.. And I work in risk management.

Can you pls elaborate the reasons for the urgency? I seriously fail to understand it

Whoa! It looks like NSW is looking at extending hate speech to include vilification, which is abusively disparaging writing or speech.. or thereabouts. It is, as far as I can tell, in NSW only, and it is not yet law, So, from a legal perspective, unless they make it retrospective, there would appear to be little legal risk. There appears to be little factually incorrect with Gareth's opening post in terms of the numbers of recent terrorist incidents and the background of the majority of perpetrators; at least from what I could find out through researching the web.. over a short period of time. There has been Hindu terrorism and a recognised Hindu terrorist organisation in India, but the numbers of attributed attacks are low, in comparison so as not to make a material difference. But in those facts are also omissions that we need to bring to light.. The first is context. i.e. where are those terrorist attacks occuring.The vast majority are in Northern Africa, Middle East, and Northen Asia (Pakistan). Outside of these areas, there is comparatively few terrorist attacks, and in the US, UK, etc. the number of terrorist attacks by Islam v non-Islam is a little more even, but at least, from the reports, the more extreme ones are generally take more casualties than non-Islam terrorist attacks (I say, generally). In fact US agencies, and I think ASIO and MI-5, not exactly woke, seem to be more worried about white supremacist and non-Islam foreign backed terrorism on their respective shores than they are Islam And interestingly, from this article, https://nij.ojp.gov/topics/articles/what-nij-research-tells-us-about-domestic-terrorism: "The situational characteristics of the crimes, including whether the acts were premeditated or spontaneous, involved co-conspirators, or were committed while under the influence of drugs and alcohol." Again, by all accounts, cannot fault this as fact. But, like the above, it is out of context, For the sake of brevity, I have been through that context in many other posts. But, before the late Yenn posted about his thoughts on Israel when the UAE was normalising its relations with Israel, I pretty well went along with the above. His comments sparked a curiosity in which the context has changed my mind on Israel and the conflict. Of course it's a tragedy that innocent civilians are losing their lives.. My point is there are difficult subjects, but without the ability to express one's views and debate the merits of it, suppressing it just takes it underground and forments even more hatred and polarisation. If we can't debate civilly, and are truly worried out words here would spark riots or incite crime, then, the world has become a bad place, but suppressing that speech will make it worse Look at how the far right is growing. Trump, anyone?

Is this the report?: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2024-12-04/man-dies-in-hospital-after-boulder-kalgoorlie-home-invasion/104683322 Can you point to me where this is stated or even implied: The article seemed to be quoting people, not offering an opinion. Do you know if the the victim or their family were prepared to quote for the article, or if the victim was even in a position to quote? While the article did quote from the perpetrator;s family and didn't quote from the victim's family, this assessment seems a couple of hundred thousand miles away from a balanced assessment. BTW, I am not saying your assessment is necessarily wrong, but it doesn't quite pass the pub test (and I am writing from the pub).

And @pmccarthy - compare the economic performance of the Trump administration to that of Biden, who was handed by Trump comparatively worse performing economy resulting from Covid.. I am not sure where you get sure info from. But this time, like last time, Trump has been handed a better economy than last time. Let's see where it is in 4 years.

The Jackaroo (Isuzu Trooper) came in two main engine variants.. From memory it was a 3l turbo diesel and a 3.2lt v6 petrol. I had a 1996 or 1999 3.2l petrol for a couple of years.. And it was a very good car and moderately capable 4x4. It was an auto and it could haul a load and tow capable. The diesels, I believe we're not great at all.. but I would rank the petrol version I had as one of the better cars I have owned for its tome and money. Only sold it because I moved back to the UK

That is my point

In any non fully proportional voting system, you are going to get skewed results. In Australia at the last election, the ALP won goverment, albeit by one seat, with onlly slightly more than 30% the primary vote. The Greens onlu picked up 4 seats with c. 14% of the primary vote. Hardly really a vote of confidence in forming a government outright, but the electoral boundaries and preferences meant that they got in. In the UK, which is first past the post per electorate (or more accurately, those with the highest vote count in an electorate), with 33.7% of the vote, Labour scored 412 seats in the house of commons out of c. 650 seats; With 22% of the vote, Conservatives scored 121 seats (so, about right), but the Lib Dems, with 12.2% of the vote scored 72 seats (again, about right), and Nigel Farage's party, Reform, with 14.3% of the national vote, scored only 5 seats. So 2% more votes, and less that 1% of the seats in total and less than 10% of the seats the Lib Dems won. To put that further into perspective, those parties or groups that won more seats: Independents won 6 seats with 2% of votes Sinn Fein won 7 seats with 0.7% of the votes Scottish National Party won 9 seats with 2.5% of the vote We will alway find anomolies in voting systems. Based on that, it may not have been a popular vote landslide, but in accordance with the US voting system, Trump won c. 86 more electoral college votes, and passed the 270 required very comfortably; He won 31 of the 50 states, he won both houses, and he narrowly won the popular vote. On all of these measures, most presidents had narrower gaps, although even Chat GPT couldn't tell me how many elections have resulted in the "triple". On these measures, it if isn't a landslide, it is a comprehensive electoral win.. And regardless, he has the majority of the house, the senate, and is the president, so, assuming the bulk of the Republican representatives/senators are loyal, he has more scpe to push his agenda than he did last time. It also gives other powerbrokers in the Republicans to push their agenda, too. Agreed.. and so would a proper functioning of the 4th pillar of democracy - the press - free, fearless, and unbiased. Alas, a the oligarchy controls it.

Indeed, even in autocracies and dicatorships, that hard power only goes so far, too. If you don't enjoy the confidence of the heads of the military, for example, then your hard power will only go so far. If you don't negotiate and compromise with others that weild power, your power base will be diminished. Here is a thesis that talks to, with the abstract saying it is rare that a dictator can rally against their powerful elite and survive: Looks like the bluster on Tarrifs is being delayed: https://www.reuters.com/markets/currencies/global-markets-trump-instant-view-2025-01-20/ and https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2025-01-20/trump-seen-sparing-china-targeted-tariffs-on-day-one-of-new-term Now, I would have thought a candidate would bring to the electorate well researched policies. Who would have thought he meant he would immedately implement research to see if tarrifs is the right way to go?