old man emu Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 I respect Tony Abbott's right to a view on SSM and his right to campaign for his point of view. I'm of the oppsosite view. Tony is an equally strong supporter of a branch of Christianity. Which is OK by me, too. All branches of Christianity have as a core value of their marriage agreements, made in front of their God, and human witnesses, that 'what God has joined together, let no man put asunder" How come the hypocritical sod supports divorce via the Family Law Act? OME Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 He obviously respects the law of the land, even though he is a Christian. It is not only Christians that will be voting No, and being Christian only says that you are gullible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nomadpete Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 I think the point was: Why aren't the right wing Christian lobbyists running an equally vocal campaign to change family law to prohibit divorce? It stands to reason that if they were true to their stated values, then the thought of allowing divorce would be as repugnant as the thought of equal marriage rights for all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Hypocrisy in religion? Say it ain't so!! It was interesting the way that a bloke head-butted MrRabbott here in Hobart the other day. His immediate reaction was to blame the "yes" side for it and say that if that's the way they react then everyone should vote "no". However it seems the bloke that did it said it had nothing to do with the SSM issue... he just saw an opportunity to headbutt TA and thought he may not get the chance again! (While I don't condone violence, I sympathise with the temptation in that particular case.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Quick A whip round to fund his defense, "All the voter's want to smack him in the mouth" as the same goes for most MP's. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted September 23, 2017 Share Posted September 23, 2017 Not going there Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted September 24, 2017 Author Share Posted September 24, 2017 [ATTACH]48981._xfImport[/ATTACH] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
old man emu Posted September 24, 2017 Author Share Posted September 24, 2017 Of course it's wrong, and the Kisser has said that he will enter a "Guilty" plea. Surely the right or wrong of it doesn't prevent us satirizing the situation. Especially in this irreverent place. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 Let's face it, it may not necessarily be Abbott, but which of us hasn't thought - when listening to a pollie spouting BS that's opposite to our own stance - "I wish I could slap that silly bugger". This guy just saw his opportunity and took it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted September 24, 2017 Share Posted September 24, 2017 We can respectfully disagree with most, but some politicians are just noxious and loathsome. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jerry_Atrick Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 As in all walks of life... of course, to some, he is a perfect gentleman - it just depends on one's own disposition Cross-quoted: The thing to remember about the other two protest votes that led to very undesirable outcomes - Trump and Brexit - were that both of them won on the "yes" votes of only 26% of eligible voters. (Clinton actually got 3 million more votes than Trump - just not in the right states.) So it wasn't so much a popular uprising, rather it was apathy on the part of normal voters. If Democrat voters had any clue that Trump could possibly win, they would have turned out in droves. Same with Brexit. So hopefully, given that Australia has compulsory voting, there will always be enough sensible people to counteract the minority that are protesting, or suckered in by the anti-immigration stance of Hanson. <snip> That same compulsory voting regime that resulted in Howard (after how many failed attempts), Abbot and Rudd?? (also, the turnout numbers on Brexit was something like 74% of the voting population - so with 52% of the vote going to yes, I make that something lie 38.5% of the primay vote going to Brexit - not far off what is required to elect governments in both first past the post and proportional representation systems on average) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 That same compulsory voting regime that resulted in Howard (after how many failed attempts), Abbot and Rudd?? Rightly or wrongly (I vote the latter) Howard managed to pull the wool over the voter's eyes and presented himself as "a safe pair of hands". (Safe to fritter away the largesse from the mining boom by buying votes, NOT build a sovereign wealth fund and f*ck the wording in the marriage act... but he did bring in gun control which counts for a bit.) Abbott ran the most effective absolutely negative opposition campaign possible. I can't stand the guy but I do admit that his opposition tactics, although disgusting, were effective. Rudd was the great white hope in 2007. He was our hope for change from the endless (seeming) Howard years, a fresh attitude, great plans for the environment and taxing super profits from the miners, even an apology for the stolen generations. Just a shame most of it was watered down, killed by lies from the big mining companies, even the huge mistake from the Greens in not supporting the ETS. But what Rudd did accomplish was safely steering the ship of state through the GFC, for which I think he doesn't get enough credit. What were we talking about again? Oh yeah, compulsory voting. I guess you can't prevent stupidity. (also, the turnout numbers on Brexit was something like 74% of the voting population - so with 52% of the vote going to yes, I make that something lie 38.5% of the primay vote going to Brexit - not far off what is required to elect governments in both first past the post and proportional representation systems on average) I have no doubt you're right... the 26% thing was something said by a Radio National Late Night Live guest, and the reason it sticks in my mind was that he made a point of the fact that both Brexit and Trump were on 26% of the people eligible to vote. Don't know how he arrived at the figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
storchy neil Posted September 27, 2017 Share Posted September 27, 2017 My opinion voting to be compulsory Neil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 If gun control was effective, the crooks would have less, & honest shooter's would have more!, "but he did bring in gun control which counts for a bit." Instead we are an Unarmed nation that couldn't defend ourselves if invaded tomorrow. Seem to have seen a film this week "Tomorrow when the war begins (starts)" or something like that. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Old Koreelah Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 All true, Spacey, but nutters were prevented from obtaining self-loading weapons. That has saved a lot of innocent lives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
David2ayo Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 If it is used on the guy who is about to launch the ICBM ..... (its almost a comment looking for a thread, Peter!) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Perhaps everyone should have an ICBM with a hydrogen bomb warhead. No point in doing things by half measures. Same logic. The gun situation in the US is probably worse than Libya. Guns, Money and God. what could possibly go wrong?. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 If gun control was effective, the crooks would have less, & honest shooter's would have more!,"but he did bring in gun control which counts for a bit." Instead we are an Unarmed nation that couldn't defend ourselves if invaded tomorrow. Seem to have seen a film this week "Tomorrow when the war begins (starts)" or something like that. spacesailor I had an 8-shot Bentley 12g pump which I handed in. Don't miss it. If it gets to the stage where another country has boots on our ground then we're screwed anyway. We have a professional army and if they can't do the job, civilians with .22's are only going to get themselves killed if they try to stand up to trained soldiers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 Talking about hypocrisy in the SSM debate... listening to Drive tonight, they had an organiser for the "yes" camp and another for the "no" camp. The "no" bloke was Irish, had worked for the "no" team there, obviously without success, and came over here to try his luck with the "no" team. So anyway they're talking about this bloke Macklemore who the NRL has brought over from the US to sing before the game. Apparently one of his hits is "Same love" (about gay marriage) which has mightily pissed off Tony Abbott and now, I see, Bob Katter. Long story short, this twit from Ireland, in his broad Irish accent, is saying "...the Australian people don't need someone coming from overseas and telling them how to think..." There's a reason they make jokes about them! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 My point exactly, "stand up to trained soldiers". We are not trained, as it's against the law to own a firearm. so only illegals can get gun training. 22 rifle is a beginner's gun, end up shooting a 44-40 Winchester, now that's got a kick! . Not many new gun clubs lately, Switzerland, has All it's people trained, but has never gone to war with anyone. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
facthunter Posted September 28, 2017 Share Posted September 28, 2017 . War is madness and we will never learn the lessons of history. The North Korea and US leaders are nutcases, but the US has to realise it can't run the whole world the way it chooses to do for it's own profit for much longer.. Nev Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted October 4, 2017 Share Posted October 4, 2017 There was another thread about the SSM debate which I can't seem to find now. Among the attempts to justify a "no" vote is the old religious bakers & flower arrangers argument. This article answers that one quite nicely! Religious exemptions for same-sex marriage bad for business If you're planning to vote "yes", don't forget to put it in the post... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yenn Posted October 4, 2017 Share Posted October 4, 2017 What I can't understand is that when I opened my envelope it suggested I vote and post it away immediately. Others say vote now. So why do we have to have so long before the votes will be counted. Is it so that there can be a debate about the issue? If so shouldn't we listen to the arguments proposed, befor we vote. But then after listening to some of those put up so far, they are just juvenile rubbish, trying to make any argument suit the proponents point of view. I am going to vote later in case someone comes up with a compelling argument to influence me one way or the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spacesailor Posted October 4, 2017 Share Posted October 4, 2017 "I am going to vote later in case someone comes up with a compelling argument to influence me one way or the other." That next wedding will cost you heaps, if your SON is the bride!. Old way only the female brides parents pay for the wedding. LoL I know with four daughters. spacesailor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marty_d Posted October 4, 2017 Share Posted October 4, 2017 "I am going to vote later in case someone comes up with a compelling argument to influence me one way or the other."That next wedding will cost you heaps, if your SON is the bride!. Old way only the female brides parents pay for the wedding. LoL I know with four daughters. spacesailor Does anyone still do that?? We paid for our own wedding (well I think my wife's mum paid for the dress, but she didn't have to.) Any of our kids get married - boys or the girl - we'll help them out but they can pay for most of it! Especially if they want to go over the top. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now