# Hilary or Donald



## Ducatiboy stu (9/11/16)

Going to be interesting


----------



## madpierre06 (9/11/16)

Evil vs mad.


----------



## RobW (9/11/16)

Most of the pundits seem to have dropped off Trump because of the big early voting turnouts.


----------



## damoninja (9/11/16)

"Nah no way Trump's a pig!!"

_Meanwhile: *voted for one nation*_

Naturally when you ask someone what one of his policies are the response is "Nah I dunno he's just a pig ay ahaha"


----------



## barls (9/11/16)




----------



## LAGERFRENZY (9/11/16)

The place is pretty fucked anyway and neither of them has any prospect of unfucking it.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/11/16)

Show's not over until the rich lady sings.


----------



## damoninja (9/11/16)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> The place is pretty fucked anyway and neither of them has any prospect of unfucking it.


US isn't Europe level fucked though...

Not saying everything about the US is a grand grail of society but look at what pandering to the left has done to France, Denmark, Sweden... Record numbers of French are now fleeing France to live in the US.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (9/11/16)

damoninja said:


> US isn't Europe level fucked though...
> 
> Not saying everything about the US is a grand grail of society but look at what pandering to the left has done to France, Denmark, Sweden... Record numbers of French are now fleeing France to live in the US.


Suggesting that there is a Left in the US?


----------



## Liam_snorkel (9/11/16)

should have put a bet on last night.

trumps down to $1.22, from over $10


----------



## fraser_john (9/11/16)

I voted for an independent..... was not going to vote for either of those two.

Gold price going up though, pointing to a Trump win LOL.


----------



## damoninja (9/11/16)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> Suggesting that there is a Left in the US?


Demos are considered to be left of centre to radical left. 

I'm not going to get too in to it, but the radical left make everything offensive to the point where the ultra right conservatives can do whatever the **** they want and nobody can say anything without being branded a bigot.


----------



## manticle (9/11/16)

Democrats are radical left?

Holy shit.


----------



## moonhead (9/11/16)

Looks like 4 years of media circus covering every tweet we get from The Donald...

On the plus side, I have beer to drink.


----------



## JDW81 (9/11/16)

damoninja said:


> "Nah no way Trump's a pig!!"
> 
> _Meanwhile: *voted for one nation*_
> 
> Naturally when you ask someone what one of his policies are the response is "Nah I dunno he's just a pig ay ahaha"


He's got great policies. Build a wall along the Mexican Border, ban all immigration to anyone who isn't white, lock up Hilary (and anyone else who dares to question his might), make the rich pay less tax and make healthcare less affordable than it already is for those who can least afford it.

And yes, he is a pig. He is also a petulant child with no humility, compassion or sense of humanity. He is only in this for Donald, and probably couldn't give a toss about anyone else in the USA (particularly if they aren't white and wealthy).

But at least he made his own money. Oh no, wait a minute. He inherited millions from his father, and has since run multiple businesses into the ground and been bankrupt numerous times.

God Bless America.

Now I'm off to my nuclear shelter to drink my IPA keg dry and await the nuclear apocalypse that will inevitably follow when trump gets his hands on the "Football".

PS. Not a fan of Hilary either. Another one of the wealthy, political class who feel it is their right to be re-elected time and time again, despite a long list of failures and inaction.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/11/16)

barls said:


> IMG_0079.JPG


We are tied to America militarily and in part financially. It is quite scary if this guy gets control of arguably the largest military force on the planet. Be afraid.


----------



## Killer Brew (9/11/16)

What a nightmare result. Add that to the Brexit one and we are facing into a very unstable world; both diplomatically and economically.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (9/11/16)

The guy so damned dangerously stupid that even George W Bush was proud to be filmed voting for Comrade Hilary.


----------



## Dave70 (9/11/16)

Keep an eye on the stock market and the inverse reaction as Trumps vote count rises.


----------



## Vini2ton (9/11/16)

Things will go into overdrive in the US. He'll either be impeached or whacked before his term is out. Wonder if I can get a bet on?


----------



## Weizguy (9/11/16)

God help us all now.

At least if you put money on him, it's win/win. Money or the other President.


----------



## malt junkie (9/11/16)

I rather give control of nuclear weapons to my dumb as dog shit vexious ex wife.


----------



## DU99 (9/11/16)

let's see what the $ does


----------



## niftinev (9/11/16)

Can't believe in a country that size this is the best they can do.

Place must be full of .................


----------



## Stouter (9/11/16)

Yeah you'd think that in all of America they could come up with some better options for a President, but it's looking like the people have spoken.
Says a lot about the people I reckon.


----------



## MHB (9/11/16)

Oh ****, ****, **** and Fuckit! Can we get out of ANZUS right now please.
If Donald isn't scary enough think about 20 years of an entrenched conservative supreme court
Mark


----------



## timmi9191 (9/11/16)

OMG...


----------



## Mardoo (9/11/16)

And the UK thinks they had it bad with Brexit. Whinging Poms.


----------



## HBHB (9/11/16)

Suffice to say a pig in a suit is still a pig.


----------



## DU99 (9/11/16)

Toilet Paper
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Hillary-Clinton-Toilet-Novelty-Party-Gag-Gift-Prank-Humor-1-Roll-Tissue/32756571056.html Clinton
https://www.aliexpress.com/item/Donald-Trump-Humour-Toilet-Paper-Roll-Novelty-Funny-Gag-Gift-Dump-with-Trump/32685541404.html Trump


----------



## Dave70 (9/11/16)

Trump voters (left) discover the truth. Vote Trump anyway.


----------



## malt junkie (9/11/16)

MHB said:


> Oh ****, ****, **** and Fuckit! Can we get out of ANZUS right now please.
> If Donald isn't scary enough think about 20 years of an entrenched conservative supreme court
> Mark


Roaches don't care about or recognise the US supreme court.


----------



## JDW81 (9/11/16)

Trump just passed 270 votes.

Bad, bad, times ahead me predicts.


----------



## Dave70 (9/11/16)

Jesus ******* Christ.. Cant we at least get Bush back?


----------



## JDW81 (9/11/16)

I'm off to the fallout shelter, I'll see you all after the next US election.


----------



## niftinev (9/11/16)

all over red rover


----------



## Zorco (9/11/16)

Well, here is the start of something.... 

I'm going to start drinking right now and start guessing what the next 4 years will be like


----------



## JDW81 (9/11/16)

Zorco said:


> I'm going to start drinking right now and start guessing what the next 4 years will be like


I started as soon as Trump hit the lead..... 

Maybe Pauline will be the next PM if the trend continues.


----------



## Droopy Brew (9/11/16)

I am willing to put aside my disdain for political assassinations just this once.

On the plus side, having Abbott as our ex PM doesn't look quite so bad now does it?


----------



## MHB (9/11/16)

Story around that the Canadian Department of Immigration website has just crashed...
Just looked and its working now, good story but.
Mark


----------



## yankinoz (9/11/16)

I'll be staying here a while.


----------



## HBHB (9/11/16)

yankinoz said:


> I'll be staying here a while.


Better get some blow up beds out. You might get a lot of visitors soon.


----------



## yankinoz (9/11/16)

Two weeks ago I spotted a group of Americans in China at a jade workshop wearing red hats, TRUMP, MAKE AMERICAN GREAT AGAIN. Yes, in China, though at least it wasn't Mexico. Their bus departed in the direction of the Great Wall. Maybe they were getting design ideas.

If some of you guys work in construction, there might be jobs open on Trump's wall. Of course, when Mexico refuses to pay for it Trump will tell you to take five cents on each dollar promised. Like he did on the Trump casino.


----------



## Camo6 (9/11/16)

Meh. Not exactly the end of the world. Just another figurehead who will struggle to get anything too radical through the senate.
As far as I'm concerned they're both as bad as each other. Atleast with Trump you can explain where his fortune came from.
It might be good for the US in the long term. In four years I'll bet they get two very different candidates to this year's and a public who might be a bit more open minded as to who gets their vote. 
Now, I better get back to building my bunker.


----------



## Zorco (9/11/16)

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Powers_of_the_President_of_the_United_States


----------



## Newy (9/11/16)




----------



## indica86 (9/11/16)

HBHB said:


> Suffice to say a pig in a suit is still a pig.


Naaah, if it is cured and smoked it's then a Ham.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (9/11/16)

Camo6 said:


> Meh. Not exactly the end of the world. Just another figurehead who will struggle to get anything too radical through the senate.
> As far as I'm concerned they're both as bad as each other. Atleast with Trump you can explain where his fortune came from.
> It might be good for the US in the long term. In four years I'll bet they get two very different candidates to this year's and a public who might be a bit more open minded as to who gets their vote.
> Now, I better get back to building my bunker.


Republicans now very likely to control both Congress and the Senate.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (9/11/16)

It's not all bad news.


----------



## Lyrebird_Cycles (9/11/16)

MHB said:


> think about 20 years of an entrenched conservative supreme court
> Mark


This.

If the authors of "Freakonomics" are right, there will be a huge increase in crime in the US in about 20 years.

Gotta love how we are running a great series of uncontrolled experiments on the future of society / the planet / you name it.


----------



## damoninja (9/11/16)

https://cardsagainsthumanity.com/trump/


----------



## manticle (9/11/16)

My 41st birthday present is Donald Trump.

Can I exchange please?


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (9/11/16)

How about a Secretary of State Palin?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (9/11/16)

Can see it now.." I did not grab that woman on the snatch "


----------



## bradsbrew (9/11/16)

Bah, everyone said Axl would be bad for ACDC......


----------



## Helles (9/11/16)

Pretty sure Trump will get assasinated


----------



## Batz (9/11/16)

helles said:


> Pretty sure Trump will get assasinated



Pretty sure your right.


----------



## indica86 (9/11/16)

Batz said:


> Pretty sure your right.


Put $50 on you being wrong.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (9/11/16)

The Democrats will go hard on him to get hum impeached

The interesting thing is how it is more a protest vote, like brexit, and like our last election

The masses are sick of the bullshit


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/11/16)

Agreed. Protest vote against the smooth talking, protect their own skins and do nothing pollies/parties.

Australian coalition take note. All talk and no real reform will lead to an ever increasing protest vote. Look after the small guy or it can lead to ramifications.


----------



## moonhead (9/11/16)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> The interesting thing is how it is more a protest vote, like brexit, and like our last election
> 
> The masses are sick of the bullshit


Whoever thinks Trump is a better "protest vote" than Clinton needs to get themselves lobotomised (or maybe that's the problem). 

That said, the yanks really do love to screw themselves over.


----------



## Zorco (9/11/16)

Trump is outside the institution of politicians. He differs, he lives free, he don't give no fucks: he's an American. Just what Americans want as their president.

He won't have had proximity to Snowden esque spying; he is potentially the people's most trustworthy candidate.

If you think Obama turned grey in his tenure, think of the litres of orange Trump will need when he learns America's secrets and is responsible. **** knows who his mentor will be.

This is a risky time, because 'deal making' just ain't everything


----------



## Midnight Brew (9/11/16)

https://youtu.be/qmfqpOGzOhI

From one of my loved childhood films.


----------



## Zorco (9/11/16)

Hahah, that's what damaged MC!


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (9/11/16)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Australian coalition take note.


Now that is a funny story.

Labor must be rolling around the floor outside the chamber


----------



## manticle (9/11/16)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> How about a Secretary of State Palin?


I'd rather a whisky if that's ok.


----------



## technobabble66 (9/11/16)

Apparently there have been celebrations in The Kremlin.
I'm sure that doesn't mean anything :unsure:


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (9/11/16)

manticle said:


> I'd rather a whisky if that's ok.


Sure, one whisky coming up. Just don't ever, ever ask for a Tequila buddy.


----------



## moonhead (9/11/16)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> Sure, one whisky coming up. Just don't ever, ever ask for a Tequila buddy.


Bourbon or Vodka only


----------



## damoninja (10/11/16)




----------



## fraser_john (10/11/16)

I really am not sure why so many Australians are shocked at this. We saw evidence of something similar in our recent election with One Nation. The US populace are deeply disenfranchised with the current political elite that have done nothing for the people and are just sick of being fleeced. So what is considered to be an outsider comes along, bingo. Where is the surprise? It is in the fact that the media were clueless and could not put 2 and 2 together. The writing was on the wall folks.


----------



## manticle (10/11/16)

One nation won enough votes/preferences to win a few seats, not govern an entire nation though.


----------



## abyss (10/11/16)

fraser_john said:


> I really am not sure why so many Australians are shocked at this. We saw evidence of something similar in our recent election with One Nation. The US populace are deeply disenfranchised with the current political elite that have done nothing for the people and are just sick of being fleeced. So what is considered to be an outsider comes along, bingo. Where is the surprise? It is in the fact that the media were clueless and could not put 2 and 2 together. The writing was on the wall folks.


I agree.


----------



## moonhead (10/11/16)

fraser_john said:


> I really am not sure why so many Australians are shocked at this. We saw evidence of something similar in our recent election with One Nation. The US populace are deeply disenfranchised with the current political elite that have done nothing for the people and are just sick of being fleeced. So what is considered to be an outsider comes along, bingo. Where is the surprise? It is in the fact that the media were clueless and could not put 2 and 2 together. The writing was on the wall folks.


I had a glimmer of hope/naivety that the majority of the American public weren't that racist, sexist or stupid... I mean really, just how dumb do you need to be to fall for his bullshit? 

Hopefully the rest of the world fosters stronger relationships in light of this, progress onwards, in a world without America.


----------



## GalBrew (10/11/16)

fraser_john said:


> I really am not sure why so many Australians are shocked at this. We saw evidence of something similar in our recent election with One Nation. The US populace are deeply disenfranchised with the current political elite that have done nothing for the people and are just sick of being fleeced. So what is considered to be an outsider comes along, bingo. Where is the surprise? It is in the fact that the media were clueless and could not put 2 and 2 together. The writing was on the wall folks.


You're not wrong, but I'm not entirely sure how electing a narcissistic, ego driven billionaire as president is going to help these people? I'll be grateful if at the end of his presidency we haven't slipped into WW3, a nuclear winter or economic depression. Middle America think they have things bad now? Not sure 'The Donald' has anyone's interests at heart other than his own.


----------



## Grott (10/11/16)

Why be surprised, I mean they voted a film star in good old Ronald Reagan. how did it ever get to Clinton vs Trump anyway?


----------



## Dave70 (10/11/16)

Cant wait till he tears up all those free trade agreements with countries like China, where about 80% of Walmarts suppliers are based. I'm sure Walmarts 106 million odd weekly customers will be only to happy to pay $70-100 for their Levis rather than the current $17 in as they 'Make America great' once again. 
Own goal. Well played.


----------



## TheWiggman (10/11/16)

I reckon Mexico WILL end up building a wall because they'll want to stop all the immigrants fleeing from the US


----------



## moonhead (10/11/16)

Dave70 said:


> Cant wait till he tears up all those free trade agreements with countries like China, where about 80% of Walmarts suppliers are based. I'm sure Walmarts 106 million odd weekly customers will be only to happy to pay $70-100 for their Levis rather than the current $17 in as they 'Make America great' once again.
> Own goal. Well played.


Can't wait for China to give Trump the finger when he tries to play hard and stupid with them.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (10/11/16)

http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president

^ here's a breakdown of where the votes came from.

Long story short, white christian males above the age of 30, and there's a lot of them.


----------



## JDW81 (10/11/16)

Maybe we should have listened to the Simpsons.


----------



## DU99 (10/11/16)

Heard a rumour the great wall of china has been sold to some billionaire in Americia..


----------



## JDW81 (10/11/16)

I suspect Trump's wall will be more akin to the Berlin Wall


----------



## lost at sea (10/11/16)

lets take a look at some of trumps "policies"....

End crime: "The crime and violence … will soon, and I mean very soon, will come to an end"........sounds easy..

Reduce gun violence by empowering law-abiding gun owners to defend themselves......hmmm

Appoint new supreme court judges who "will be pro-life, they will have a conservative bent, they will be protecting the second amendment"

Scrap the Affordable Care Act,.........i think that he means if you cannot afford to live, stop living.

Says public funding of abortion providers is "an insult to people of conscience"

"Fix America's mental health system," which he says will prevent many mass shootings......again so simple

Implement "reforms to add millions of new jobs"........such assss?

Reduce the top tax bracket from 39.6 per cent to 33 per cent

Cut the corporate tax rate from 35 per cent to 15 per cent

Submit a new budget to rebuild America's "depleted military"

Work with other countries to cut off funding to ISIS.......arnt they already doing that?

Speak to North Korea to try and stop their nuclear program,....?can you guys please stop that."


----------



## Zorco (10/11/16)

Consumer prices and fictitious walls are one thing... but he is commander in chief of the military force that protects Australia in this region.

I suspect (yet still hope) his military advisors / admirals / marshals are ready to influence Trump as need be


----------



## technobabble66 (10/11/16)

GalBrew said:


> You're not wrong, but I'm not entirely sure how electing a narcissistic, ego driven billionaire as president is going to help these people? I'll be grateful if at the end of his presidency we haven't slipped into WW3, a nuclear winter or economic depression. Middle America think they have things bad now? Not sure 'The Donald' has anyone's interests at heart other than his own.


^^ This. 
I agree with what FJ said, but as GalBrew then points out, I really don't see how this puffed-up, narcissistic billionaire, who's never had to live a day in his life without extreme wealth, is going to either understand the plight of the "working man" or provide any real solutions to the deep, long-term problems the U.S. faces. I'm hoping he might be decent at renegotiating some aspects of policy that clearly need reworking, but his history suggests he tends to focus on the immediate "deal" at hand irrespective on the longer term. That doesn't bode well for many important aspects of running a country, particularly foreign policy and international military coalitions. Maybe he'll use his reputation to just take a tougher negotiating stance to help garner a "better deal" for the U.S. while ultimately still maintaining strong (military) ties. But I have my doubts. Eg: I'm curious how the South China Sea situation is going to develop. Maybe it'll be like the king of England extracting a tithe from his vassals for the protection he provides? Time will tell. 

My other big concern is that he seems to somehow encourage belligerent white Christian males to feel legitimized in expressing and reinforcing their sexism, racism, and bigotry. 
Again, I hope he'll address that and somehow negate it. Again, I doubt it. Otherwise it seems like it'll be a massive step back for US culture. 

And more distressingly it seems to similarly legitimize those same douchebags here.


----------



## moonhead (10/11/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/exit-polls/national/president
> 
> ^ here's a breakdown of where the votes came from.
> 
> Long story short, white christian males above the age of 30, and there's a lot of them.


Not only that, but a lot of people in demographics and with opinions that most people would have assumed wouldn't have voted for Trump.


----------



## fraser_john (10/11/16)

Zorco said:


> Consumer prices and fictitious walls are one thing... but he is commander in chief of the military force that protects Australia in this region.
> 
> I suspect (yet still hope) his military advisors / admirals / marshals are ready to influence Trump as need be


Yeah, it is a worry when his marketing people take away his access to his own Twitter account, yet now he controls access to nuclear weapons.

Regardless, the USA is financially bankrupt, just not acknowledged as such. His statements on building a wall was total BS, he cannot start an infrastructure task like that without approval of senate/congress, so that won't happen. His control of foreign policy and connections with Russia is where the rest of the world should be really concerned.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (10/11/16)

the baltic states will be clenching a bit.

http://www.theatlantic.com/news/archive/2016/07/trump-nato/492341/


----------



## damoninja (10/11/16)

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/2147684/violence-erupts-across-the-us-as-pro-clinton-fans-riot-after-donald-trumps-shock-election-win/

But the Trump supporters are the evil ones


----------



## Brownsworthy (10/11/16)

There won't be any change he won't make America great again he will be another republican puppet...I hope.


----------



## damoninja (10/11/16)

Brownsworthy said:


> There won't be any change he won't make America great again he will be another republican puppet...I hope.


I'd be inclined to disagree, I think there'll be big changes... 

Whether they're good or bad, we'll have to wait and see............. h34r: h34r:


----------



## technobabble66 (10/11/16)

Oh. And it's always worth remembering over the next 4-8 years that if it wasn't for Comey and his announced investigation last week, Hillary most likely would've won - it shifted the polls by ~10 points within a day, and Trump only won by a margin of a few points in most key states. 

Interesting how the election may've been decided by the actions of one man. Totally not dubious. 

Or you could point the finger a that guy Weiner, and his weiner. Amazing how much his penchant for showing off his weiner has poisoned the lives of those around him and may've condemned America to a terrible fate. 
... Or his wife who really should've kicked him to the gutter years ago. Can you imagine how bad she must be feeling now! Maybe that's a lesson for everyone (esp the girls) out there: don't put up with dickhead partners, you never know how dire the consequences of sticking by and putting up with them may one day be! (That's def not to blame her, by the way. More just pointing out how terrible she's probably feeling for not ditching the guy that might've cost Hillary the presidency)


----------



## sunovagun (10/11/16)

Hillary is easily the most corrupt politician seen in many decades. The shadows hanging over her were way too much for many voters. Yet MSM and her plethora of financial backers did everything in its power to get her over the line. 

Trump on the other hand won the presidency when the whole establishment, his own party, the MSM, amongst others were all against him. A great achievement really.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (10/11/16)

she shouldn't have rigged the primaries h34r:


----------



## yankinoz (10/11/16)

At the statistical analysis website 538.org, Andrew Flowers posted a map yesterday that I would link, but today 365 seems to have buried it under an avalanche of post-election commentary.

There were two maps of electoral districts, one showing the percentage of jobs lost to China (according to one econometric analysis), the other the Trump vote. The association is very strong if you disregard states like Alabama and West Virginia that are too deeply Republican for any pattern to be discernible. But Trump is only part of the reaction to globalisation.

Love today's interviews. Pauline Hanson's joy is unbounded. Malcolm T said all the proper things despite the sutures and steam revealing where his head was exploding.


----------



## yankinoz (10/11/16)

sunovagun said:


> Hillary is easily the most corrupt politician seen in many decades. The shadows hanging over her were way too much for many voters. Yet MSM and her plethora of financial backers did everything in its power to get her over the line.
> 
> Trump on the other hand won the presidency when the whole establishment, his own party, the MSM, amongst others were all against him. A great achievement really.


Yest and no about shadows, but you're parroting the rightwing attack machine.

A disclaimer: I have never supported Hillary. In 2008 I caucused for Richardson in Iowa. In this year's election I wrote in Elizabeth Warren.

Most corrupt politician in decades? I'd agree Hillary comes across as insincere, that she flipflops, that as senator she did the bidding of Wall Street backers, but holy hyperbole, you're calling Trump honest. Ever hear of Dick Cheney?

Re the media, they're not monolithic. Hillary had the Washington Post, the New York Times, Huffington and more. I could go on and on, but add that in the election campaign Trump had behind him the Murdoch press, Breitbart and other conspiracy-selling sites, radio shock jocks and more. All the media consistently gave him more free publicity than his opponents. He has said all publicity is good, and he played accordingly. Those are not good qualities in a national leader, but the so-called MSM did much to make Trump.


----------



## Dave70 (10/11/16)

sunovagun said:


> Hillary is easily the most corrupt politician seen in many decades. The shadows hanging over her were way too much for many voters. Yet MSM and her plethora of financial backers did everything in its power to get her over the line.
> 
> Trump on the other hand won the presidency when the whole establishment, his own party, the MSM, amongst others were all against him. A great achievement really.


For her plethora of shortcomings, Clinton is at boasts 40 plus years of political experience, high level of academic achievement and diplomatic skills. Trump is a average smarts with a BA in economics (_cough) _and zero political pedigree. You may as well have Kim Kardishian in office. You cant just tell other world leaders to go **** themselves when they dont see it your way, this isn't reality TV. Words have consequences in the big leagues. 
Trump appeals to the politically naive who believe the way to fix something is to swing a wrecking ball through it.


----------



## Brownsworthy (10/11/16)

I bet the Democrats are kicking themselves for not pushing Bernie more he is a saint compared to Hillary and Trump.


----------



## Dave70 (10/11/16)

Brownsworthy said:


> I bet the Democrats are kicking themselves for not pushing Bernie more he is a saint compared to Hillary and Trump.


An crusty ex-socialist peacenik Jew? Thats unpossible.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/11/16)

Anyone else notice the similarity with Trump and the guy from Back to the Future 2 

? I hope it's not going to head the same direction.


----------



## Zorco (10/11/16)

Dave70 said:


> For her plethora of shortcomings, Clinton is at boasts 40 plus years of political experience, high level of academic achievement and diplomatic skills. Trump is a average smarts with a BA in economics (_cough) _and zero political pedigree. You may as well have Kim Kardishian in office. You cant just tell other world leaders to go **** themselves when they dont see it your way, this isn't reality TV. Words have consequences in the big leagues.
> Trump appeals to the politically naive who believe the way to fix something is to swing a wrecking ball through it.


_'__Within a game theory-like approach, we explore different promotion strategies and we find, counterintuitively, that in order to avoid such an effect (inefficiency) the best ways for improving the efficiency of a given organization are either *to promote each time an agent at random or to promote randomly the best and the worst members in terms of competence*._'


https://arxiv.org/abs/0907.0455


----------



## moonhead (10/11/16)

sunovagun said:


> Hillary is easily the most corrupt politician seen in many decades. The shadows hanging over her were way too much for many voters. Yet MSM and her plethora of financial backers did everything in its power to get her over the line.
> 
> Trump on the other hand won the presidency when the whole establishment, his own party, the MSM, amongst others were all against him. A great achievement really.


That's pretty rich considering what she's been accused of (not found guilty of), is no worse than what most pollies in Australia get up to.

"Private Email Server", meanwhile we have Turnbull advocating the use of WhatsApp and Wickr to communicate without any records.

Talking to Banks? Well, most pollies get up at fundraisers and promise the world


----------



## malt junkie (10/11/16)

I wonder how our American admin views our take on all this.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/11/16)

Depends who he voted for


----------



## pcmfisher (10/11/16)

If Hilary was the best candidate the Democrats could push forward.......well, there's your answer.


----------



## Dave70 (10/11/16)

malt junkie said:


> I wonder how our American admin views our take on all this.


No more bannings if you play up, just a virtual wall, paid for by the supporting members.


----------



## Zorco (10/11/16)

pcmfisher said:


> If Hilary was the best candidate the Democrats could push forward.......well, there's your answer.


He wasn't.

It was Berny Sanders.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IFu8KK7DnYk


----------



## Liam_snorkel (10/11/16)




----------



## Zorco (10/11/16)

I hope you run a BB on this hat


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/11/16)

Yes we can!

... Oh wait, that was last time.


----------



## sp0rk (10/11/16)

Zorco said:


> I hope you run a BB on this hat


It's about time we did another merch run, most of my shirts are worn out (or I'm just too ******* fat for them)


----------



## Weizguy (10/11/16)

JDW81 said:


> I'm off to the fallout shelter, I'll see you all after the next US election.


That's not a reasonable assumption, that we will witnessing another election, EVER.




fraser_john said:


> I really am not sure why so many Australians are shocked at this. We saw evidence of something similar in our recent election with One Nation. The US populace are deeply disenfranchised with the current political elite that have done nothing for the people and are just sick of being fleeced. So what is considered to be an outsider comes along, bingo. Where is the surprise? It is in the fact that the media were clueless and could not put 2 and 2 together. The writing was on the wall folks.


Damn, so you're saying that they followed our example? And I suppose Brexit too?
Stupid bastards!


----------



## warra48 (10/11/16)

Does anyone really remember any real policies Hilli espoused during the campaign? I for one got heartily sick of the same old same old every night on the news seeing her rabbiting on about "stronger together". Who knows what in blazes that even means?

Much as I or you may disagree with Donni, he did crap on about lots of different things he would do once elected. Obviously, enough of them hit their target.


----------



## mondestrunken (10/11/16)

Drink up people. We've just witnessed the start of WW3. Thanks very much swinging voters in a handful of states.


----------



## spog (10/11/16)

mondestrunken said:


> Drink up people. We've just witnessed the start of WW3. Thanks very much swinging voters in a handful of states.


WW3 ?,dunno about that but look on the bright side.
No Clinton in office means nobody is copping a cigar where cigars ain't supposed to go.


----------



## yankinoz (10/11/16)

warra48 said:


> Does anyone really remember any real policies Hilli espoused during the campaign? I for one got heartily sick of the same old same old every night on the news seeing her rabbiting on about "stronger together". Who knows what in blazes that even means?
> 
> Much as I or you may disagree with Donni, he did crap on about lots of different things he would do once elected. Obviously, enough of them hit their target.


She kept to generalities, as she did in 2008. She had the money, and Republican voters are very much in the minority, and so the aim was stick to platitudes and smile. Trouble is, she came across as insincere.

There's a revealing true story about Hillary. In the 1990s the Wall Street banks were lobbying for tightened controls on bankruptcies, on grounds that serial declarers were abusing the system. Elizabeth Warren led a commission of investigation from 1994 to 1997, which found the abusers of the system were rare, and most people who went bankrupt did so because of job losses or medical bills. Congress passed the bill, but Warren convinced Hillary, who convinced Bill to veto. Fast forward to 2002, when Hillary is in the Senate and getting large campaign donations from the same banks. She voted for an almost-identical bill. Okay, she's not the only politician for sale, but the Hillary of today is not the idealist of her earlier years.


----------



## Batz (10/11/16)

indica86 said:


> Put $50 on you being wrong.


----------



## wereprawn (10/11/16)

Crikey! 
Lots of Chicken Littles on here. 
One fuckwit brokers arms deals with some of the most brutal, terrorist supporting regimes on earth and gets millions in campaign funding from those countries .The other fuckwit wants a closer relationship with a longtime rival . Terribly simplified but, who's going to pick a fight with the USA and Russia ? ******* no one. So scurry of to your bomb shelters and let the rest of continue with business as usual .


----------



## manticle (10/11/16)

Rad.

Enjoy.


----------



## abyss (10/11/16)

I don't give a ****.
I've got 20000 gallons (not gay US gallons) of rain water which I can brew with and heaps of fresh veggies and hops. I also have plenty of critters and fish to eat and grow my own tobacco.
When WW3 begins you guys are welcome to stay at my joint as long as you bring your own Co2 and cigarett lighters.
If possible bring some ice in case my generator shits its self.


----------



## spog (10/11/16)

Liam_snorkel said:


> should have put a bet on last night.
> 
> trumps down to $1.22, from over $10


Should have invested in gold,it went up.


----------



## Zorco (10/11/16)

Let me see..... booking next travel/resort destination:

Postcode please abyss


----------



## abyss (10/11/16)

2536


----------



## tavas (10/11/16)

spog said:


> Should have invested in gold,it went up.


And back down again


----------



## Feldon (10/11/16)

.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (10/11/16)

Boring Politics. Any break from the chain. Trump? the people Trumpified? Then Tumped? :lol:
The people are bored, so Trump!!!

Is Schwarzenegger still willing to run? Clooney?


----------



## technobabble66 (10/11/16)

abyss said:


> (not gay US gallons)
> .


Hey buddy, maybe choose a different adjective to indicate derision. (And I don't mean "US" [emoji1])

Otherwise it sounds like a great place to survive the apocalypse!


----------



## Liam_snorkel (11/11/16)

Very simplistic I know, but the republicans received about the same number of votes in the last 3 elections. It's the democrats who have received 5mil less each year. 
https://m.imgur.com/TOGIbcP


----------



## Mardoo (11/11/16)

Interesting. Voter apathy in the States is insane. My father, who ran elections in the States, said Australia is the envy of US elections technicians.


----------



## fraser_john (11/11/16)

Danscraftbeer said:


> Boring Politics. Any break from the chain. Trump? the people Trumpified? Then Tumped? :lol:
> The people are bored, so Trump!!!
> 
> Is Schwarzenegger still willing to run? Clooney?


Be nice if Schwarzenegger could run, but he cannot, have to be US born to be president. I'd have voted for him, though he is a republican he was very progressive and did good things in California whilst Governor.


----------



## VP Brewing (11/11/16)

Bill Burr on Conan last night. Funny fucker. 

https://youtu.be/OjNgm7TgsgA


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/11/16)

As a result of the US election, I went to the pub last night and drank lots of Coopers IPA...


----------



## sp0rk (11/11/16)

I honestly believe Kanye could win the 2020 election after this debacle (not that I'd ever want him to)


----------



## Feldon (11/11/16)

Michele Obama will run for the Democrat ticket in 2020.

Don't forget the bitter rivalry between Barack Obama and Hilary Clinton when they both contested for the Democrat nomination back in 2007. The don't like each other, never have.

Nothing Barack Obama would like more than to have his wife achieve what Bill Clinton's wife couldn't - the presidency.

As for Trump, what I'm looking for now are signs that reveal that all along he is just an establishment stooge who has played to the crowd to win their votes. We've been here before. Obamba turned out to be a stooge, promising 'Change We Can Believe In', but nothing changed really. Gitmo is still open when he promised to close it; and the rolling war agenda has continued. Its just that Obama has rained death on the Third World villages through technology (drones etc) rather than with great numbers of US boots on the ground. And as for the Libyan disaster, what a dog's breakfast he and Hillary made of that.

Thing is, if Trump a year from now is seen by his highly energised supporters as having caved in to become just another 'more of the same' president, there will be massive civil disruption the violence of which will make the current Democrat demos look like childsplay.


----------



## Dave70 (11/11/16)

wereprawn said:


> Crikey!
> Lots of Chicken Littles on here.
> One fuckwit brokers arms deals with some of the most brutal, terrorist supporting regimes on earth and gets millions in campaign funding from those countries .The other fuckwit wants a closer relationship with a longtime rival . Terribly simplified but, *who's going to pick a fight with the USA and Russia ? ******** no one. So scurry of to your bomb shelters and let the rest of continue with business as usual .


Yes, its all a bit dramatic,but if you want to go there, Chinas got more regular army than Russia and the US combined, and silos chock full of nukes. Plus the ISP's are state censored owned, so nobody knows nuffin.
But I'm not worried. What could possibly go wrong with a Trump / Putin alliance? 
But the real problem is China.
China
China.
China.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RDrfE9I8_hs


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/11/16)

Agreed China is the powerhouse of our economy. Australia may find themselves between a rock and a hard place if push comes to shove.


----------



## wereprawn (11/11/16)

Dave70 said:


> Yes, its all a bit dramatic,but if you want to go there, Chinas got more regular army than Russia and the US combined, and silos chock full of nukes. Plus the ISP's are state censored owned, so nobody knows nuffin.
> But I'm not worried. What could possibly go wrong with a Trump / Putin alliance?
> But the real problem is China.
> China
> ...


Yeah Dave, true that. Trump's a loudmouth , bully who'll pull his head in quick smart when he realizes he trying to rumble with the big boys though .


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/11/16)

Quite ironically the Europeans made a lot of money with Opium in China. Now China has the Europeans addicted to another kind of opium (T-shirts, plastic crap) .. and dare I say it much of our brewing equipment. 

It will not be easy for America (and/or Australia) to wean itself of "the new drug" ..


----------



## Feldon (11/11/16)

Don't forget the sleeping giant in India.

If conflict erupts between India, backed by the US, and China, were does Australia fit in?

Do we refuse to join America's next 'Coalition of the Willing' and see China stop buying our minerals etc,(and say goodbye to your Super) or do we try and step out of the conflict, which the US will read as open support for China and punish us every way they can (including economic warfare and ramping up military support for Indonesia).

Hugh White's been raising alarm over our head-in-the-sand approach to the US alliance and its implications for years. As did Malcolm Fraser just before his death recently. And now Keating is on to it too (but late to the party).

Its time for Australia to grow up and stand on its own two feet. The Trump presidency presents a rare opportunity to do this. The US in peace time will always covet good relations with Australia simply because of our militarily strategic geographic location on the globe. Its more important for them to get along with Australia than it is for Australia to get along with the US. Just that no PM has yet had the balls to lay the cards on the table.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (11/11/16)

I'm a bit ignorant - what conflict could arise between India and the US?

not sure Keating is late to the party, he's been banging on about joining ASEAN for years


----------



## Feldon (11/11/16)

I said conflict between India and China.

ASEAN is an economic forum. Keating is now saying we should leave or drastically renegotiate the ANZUS (military) alliance.

EDIT: here's a link to an essay by Malcom Fraser published in The National Interest (a US geopolitical journal) just before he died: http://nationalinterest.org/feature/america-australias-dangerous-ally-11858


----------



## Liam_snorkel (11/11/16)

I really need to work on my reading comprehension. Cheers Feldon


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/11/16)

Feldon said:


> Don't forget the sleeping giant in India.
> 
> If conflict erupts between India, backed by the US, and China, were does Australia fit in?
> 
> ...


Rock and a hard place.


----------



## Dave70 (11/11/16)

Feldon said:


> Don't forget the sleeping giant in India.
> 
> *If conflict erupts between India, backed by the US, and China, were does Australia fit in?*
> 
> ...


Beside the fact that a serious punch up with hair pulling and biting between Pakistan and India is far more likely than China, why would the US financially support the military in a country of 207 million Sunni muslims? Couldn't that be read as open support for isis? If they wanted to **** with us a little, there are far less risky strategies. 
Welfare? Go for it. Anything to prevent another Saudi funded Wahhabist school is a win in my book. 
Maby Trump could build another one of his universities, sorry "Entrepreneur Initiative". With a casino next door.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/11/16)

Ultimately Australia will go with Democracy (and the US).


----------



## Feldon (11/11/16)

Dave70 said:


> Beside the fact that a serious punch up with hair pulling and biting between Pakistan and India is far more likely than China, why would the US financially support the military in a country of 207 million Sunni muslims? Couldn't that be read as open support for isis? If they wanted to **** with us a little, there are far less risky strategies.
> Welfare? Go for it. Anything to prevent another Saudi funded Wahhabist school is a win in my book.
> Maby Trump could build another one of his universities, sorry "Entrepreneur Initiative". With a casino next door.


Pakistan's major economic and military ally is China.

Any serious escalation of the current tensions between India and Pakistan will inevitably bring China and India into conflict, quite possibly nuclear conflict. There are several other disputed territory scenarios that could also bring about Indo-Sino conflict eg. Tibet.

My worry is that Trump has promised to re-birth American manufacturing to provide jobs for his rust-belt supporters. The easiest (only?) way to achieve this is if China's is taken out, with its manufacturing infrastructure (power, water, factories etc) is destroyed. Then American factories have no Chinese competition and can rise up again. How do you destroy China's manufacturing base? Forment an Indo-Sino (nuclear) war.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/11/16)

Feldon said:


> .... possibly nuclear conflict.
> 
> The easiest (only?) way to achieve this is if China's is taken out, with its manufacturing infrastructure (power, water, factories etc) is destroyed. ....
> 
> How do you destroy China's manufacturing base? Forment an Indo-Sino (nuclear) war.....


No. 

Let's just go with some Tariffs shall we?


----------



## Dave70 (11/11/16)




----------



## tavas (11/11/16)

Dave70 said:


> Yes, its all a bit dramatic,but if you want to go there, Chinas got more regular army than Russia and the US combined, and silos chock full of nukes. Plus the ISP's are state censored owned, so nobody knows nuffin.
> But I'm not worried. What could possibly go wrong with a Trump / Putin alliance?
> But the real problem is China.
> China
> ...


----------



## spog (11/11/16)

Feldon said:


> Don't forget the sleeping giant in India.
> 
> If conflict erupts between India, backed by the US, and China, were does Australia fit in?
> 
> ...


Hmmm, Marines stationed in the N T ?....gotta wonder.


----------



## Dave70 (11/11/16)

Aaaaaaaand of course, the predictable far left / liberal pendulum swing. Just look at their sad democracy hating faces
Guess its to late to issue a trigger warning. 






Cheer up sad sacks. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EsMEYjr9o1M


----------



## Mardoo (12/11/16)

That one guy on the right is smiling...


----------



## Jens-Kristian (21/11/16)

damoninja said:


> US isn't Europe level fucked though...
> 
> Not saying everything about the US is a grand grail of society but look at what pandering to the left has done to France, Denmark, Sweden... Record numbers of French are now fleeing France to live in the US.


That's just so far off the mark. 

I'm from Denmark and have both Swedish and German friends. Are there some little issues with it all? Sure. The main issues however, lie with the reporting of it, stirring up a storm over things which most people simply do not feel any impact from ever. 

The way this whole 'Europe has gone to shit' argument is playing out, you'd think there was a war on and that people are being killed and stabbed all over the place. The reality is, that if you're walking around in any European city, you'll experience the same problems as you will when doing the same here. Walking through a smaller town there, you'll experience the same as in a smaller town here. 

'Things' have not gone to shit. For basically everyone in Europe, there's no noticeable difference.


----------



## MHB (21/11/16)

Easier to sell fear than hope, hate than tolerance, us V them. 
How's it go -The amount of energy needed to refute bullshit is an order of magnitude bigger than to produce it.
Mark


----------



## Black Devil Dog (21/11/16)

How many of these protesters got off their arses, sorry, off their asses, or to be more precise, off their sorry asses and voted?

Protest at the ballot box.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (21/11/16)

Jens-Kristian said:


> The reality is, that if you're walking around in any European city, you'll experience the same problems as you will when doing the same here. Walking through a smaller town there, you'll experience the same as in a smaller town here.


Like trying to find a decent Pub that has decent beer ?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (21/11/16)

Jens-Kristian said:


> The way this whole 'Europe has gone to shit' argument is playing out, you'd think there was a war on and that people are being killed and stabbed all over the place.
> 
> 'Things' have not gone to shit. For basically everyone in Europe, there's no noticeable difference.


Thats not what the Daily Telegraph tells me...I trust them. They would never just make shit up


----------



## Jens-Kristian (21/11/16)

Black Devil Dog said:


> How many of these protesters got off their arses, sorry, off their asses, or to be more precise, off their sorry asses and voted?
> 
> Protest at the ballot box.


I don't think there's any reason to believe that they didn't vote. I know that a lot of people didn't, but people who demonstrate are, usually, at least politically engaged. 

There's nothing wrong with protesting. I think some of the things that people have been asking for it somewhat laughable, but to say that one should only be politically engaged and take part in the democratic process at election time, is silly. 

It is also somewhat galling to hear Trump supporters say that the demonstrators should 'suck it up' when, for the past eight years they have been doing nothing of the kind themselves. 

Trump will be president. I dislike it but I acknowledge that he won the election as per the democratic system as it exists in the US. But to acknowledge and accept the democratic process, does not mean that one has to like it or be quiet about it. It's the same as when people suggest that because a government was elected, it 'has a mandate to do this or that'; it does not have that mandate unless it can carry it through. If the opposition has enough seats in parliament to block it, then the opposition has a mandate to effect that blockage. 

As citizens, we're allowed to protest. We are allowed to make our voices heard and our opinions known. That's not 'sour grapes' or 'childish behaviour' - that is to take seriously ones responsibility as a citizen.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (21/11/16)

I cant help but think Donald didn't expect to win this. The bluff is called now haha.
The problem with Trump is he's like a rolling dice. He defied all predictions and analysis as to win. Can he do the same about being a great president? Or the worst President? 
Lay your bets.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (21/11/16)

I think there is a very good reason to think that they didn't vote (Article) and it's a bit silly to be politically engaged after the event, if they weren't engaged enough during.

Not disputing the value of protesting, just do it where it will be most effective, rather than waving placards when it's too late.


----------



## MHB (21/11/16)

Our American friends make a great deal of noise about democracy, in fact they aren't a democracy, if they were Hillary would be president.
They are in fact a Republic - their founding fathers really trust the people to choose their own president, the electoral college isn't even really bound to vote the way their collegiate members did. Interesting system...
Mark


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (21/11/16)

MHB said:


> Our American friends make a great deal of noise about democracy, in fact they aren't a democracy, if they were Hillary would be president.
> They are in fact a Republic - their founding fathers really trust the people to choose their own president, the electoral college isn't even really bound to vote the way their collegiate members did. Interesting system...
> Mark


Those of us Queenslanders with long enough memories are a little loathe to say that could never happen here Mark!

Bjelke-Petersen's Country (later National) Party controlled Queensland despite consistently receiving the smallest number of votes out of the state's leading three parties, achieving the result through a notorious system of electoral malapportionment that resulted in rural votes having a greater value than those cast in city electorates. Wikipedia.


----------



## MHB (21/11/16)

I am old enough to remember the gerrymander "don't you worry about that" - one reason for being this side of the border, they haven't brought back the upper house yet either, might be saving it for the centenary in 2022.
Mark


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (21/11/16)

I don't think we need an upper house here mate, judging by the talent wading pool that we have in the Reps. And to think that current polling indicates a strong likelihood of an LNP minority government next year with the balance of power dominated by One Nation and Katter Party members... Lunatics, Asylum, Trump isn't looking so damned scary after all.


----------



## MHB (21/11/16)

That's when you NEED an upper house, makes it harder/slower for total stupidity to become law.
Mark


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (22/11/16)

I do understand the old argument about a house of review being a necessity. I just don't believe that it fits in with the way that modern voters are casting their ballots. Labour struggles to get its percentage of the vote above the low 30's and its been that way for a long time now. That's why they will never have a majority in the Federal Senate ever again in all likelihood. In Queensland, where the electorate is even more conservative the reintroduction of an Upper House would simply garner the same result that Trump is inheriting - a solid majority in both houses to the conservatives.


----------



## Dave70 (22/11/16)

One of the ironic things about Trump is he's a clown who doesn't like it when people laugh at him. 
This must have been quite an evening, Obama can deliver lines like a seasoned stand up. 
Must have been an awkward moment at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave when he handed the keys over. 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMH9O8t_YG8


----------



## wobbly (25/1/17)

Love it, love it, love it 

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/donald-trump-has-potential-to-wipe-out-the-left/news-story/7d30e10abba1dbdde3d4faf6393e31bb

We need some similar thinking in this country to swing the pendulum back from the left to the center or even a bit to the right. Unfortunately non of the Australian politician's or parties have the balls to take on the left and/or greens. Will be very interesting to see how One Nation poll in the Western Australian in March and later in Queensland

Wobbly


----------



## lost at sea (25/1/17)

wobbly said:


> Love it, love it, love it
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/donald-trump-has-potential-to-wipe-out-the-left/news-story/7d30e10abba1dbdde3d4faf6393e31bb
> 
> ...


from the left???..... you need to lay off the glass barbie, have you seen who wields the power in this country at the moment? its not the clown at the top either.


----------



## bradsbrew (25/1/17)

Link not working.

A "politician" making good on election promises?
A "politician" bringing back manufacturing and jobs?

Maybe our pocket lining representatives  politicians can invest back into our auto industry and stop selling off the land. Banker turnball resuming prime cattle land in Qld to sell/lease to Singapore defense.


----------



## manticle (25/1/17)

wobbly said:


> Love it, love it, love it
> 
> http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/world/the-times/donald-trump-has-potential-to-wipe-out-the-left/news-story/7d30e10abba1dbdde3d4faf6393e31bb
> 
> ...


Yeah mate Greens are the super power lobby in our anarcho-socialist state


----------



## wobbly (25/1/17)

Not sure how to fix the link and when I try and cut and past the article site rules don't allow the included image!!!!

Wobbly


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/1/17)

mind blowing stuff Wobbly, haha.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/1/17)

Great...all we need is a right wing government... Go Pauline


----------



## wobbly (25/1/17)

Copying works without the image!!!


[SIZE=10pt] [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]MELANIE PHILLIPS[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]· [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]The Times[/SIZE]

[SIZE=10pt]· [/SIZE]

[SIZE=9pt]2:01PM January 24, 2017[/SIZE][SIZE=10pt]· [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]*Save*http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...t/news-story/7d30e10abba1dbdde3d4faf6393e31bb[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]· [/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]o [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]Share on Facebookhttp://facebook.com/sharer.php?u=ht...faf6393e31bb&t=Potential to wipe out the lefthttp://facebook.com/sharer.php?u=ht...faf6393e31bb&t=Potential to wipe out the left[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]o [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]Share on Twitterhttps://twitter.com/intent/tweet?ur...6393e31bb&text=Potential to wipe out the lefthttps://twitter.com/intent/tweet?ur...6393e31bb&text=Potential to wipe out the left[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]o [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]Share on emailmailto:?subject=Potential to wipe o...t/news-story/7d30e10abba1dbdde3d4faf6393e31bbmailto:?subject=Potential to wipe o...t/news-story/7d30e10abba1dbdde3d4faf6393e31bb[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]o [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]Share more...http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new.../7d30e10abba1dbdde3d4faf6393e31bb#share-toolshttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/new.../7d30e10abba1dbdde3d4faf6393e31bb#share-tools[/SIZE]
[SIZE=10pt]· [/SIZE][SIZE=9pt]157http://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ory/7d30e10abba1dbdde3d4faf6393e31bb#commentshttp://www.theaustralian.com.au/new...ory/7d30e10abba1dbdde3d4faf6393e31bb#comments[/SIZE]
In his inaugural presidential address, Donald Trump shocked people to the core by making clear that he actually intended to keep his promises to those who had voted for him.
After picking themselves up off the floor, many wondered how this novel principle would translate into real policies. Due to the volatility of the new president’s character, though, it would be a rash person who would predict what he will actually do.
In any event, this is to look at him through the wrong end of the telescope. It’s not so much what he does as what he undoes.
The progressive agenda is all about changing the world and human nature to accord with a preferred model of existence. That’s what Trump voters want him to stop. He has already begun to deliver. Both at home and abroad, he intends to put into sharp reverse the policies of previous administrations which he thinks have hurt the American people. So he is poised to slaughter a herd of sacred cows.
Immediately after his inauguration the White House wiped off its website the pages on LGBT rights, civil rights, climate change and health care. Under “An America First energy plan” it now says the president is “committed to eliminating harmful and unnecessary policies such as the Climate Action Plan”. In its place he will “embrace the shale oil and gas revolution” and “clean coal technology” while protecting clean air and water and conserving natural habitats.
The White House page on civil rights has been replaced by “Standing up for our law enforcement community”. Instead of previous concerns about police behaviour, there’s now a pledge to end the “dangerous anti-police atmosphere” and support men and women in uniform in “their mission of protecting the public”.
[SIZE=10pt]· [/SIZE]*[SIZE=7.5pt]MORE: [/SIZE]*Trump’s talk is of false cures
[SIZE=10pt]· [/SIZE]*[SIZE=7.5pt]MORE: [/SIZE]*Good riddance to Obama
The new “America First foreign policy” is all about defeating Islamic State and rebuilding the military. There’s no mention of China or Russia, other than gnomic references to feeling happy “when old enemies become friends” and “peace through strength”.
Last October, candidate Trump said: “Every trade deal we have is horrible ... Believe me, they will be unwound so fast.” Now he is not only pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership but threatening to leave the North American Free Trade Agreement if the terms don’t benefit America. Trade deals, says the website, will no longer be negotiated “by, and for, members of the Washington establishment” but will be implemented “by and for the people”.
Security is paramount so the military and police will be well-funded; and the president has promised not to cut Medicare or social security. Otherwise, though, he intends dramatically to shrink the state.
According to the Washington newspaper The Hill, he plans to reduce government spending by more than $10 trillion over the next decade. At the Department of Justice, the Office of Community Oriented Policing Services and Violence Against Women grants would be axed.
The National Endowment for the Arts and the National Endowment for the Humanities would be eliminated altogether. The NEA awards millions of dollars’ worth of grants each year for art projects, which have included plays about assassinating Christopher Columbus, gun-control activist lesbians, “Doggie Hamlet” and climate change poetry.
This rainbow alliance of causes has already been behaving as if the election of Donald Trump presages the end of the world. It is the end of their world, for sure. For such a drastic withdrawal of government patronage would help cut off the progressive agenda at the knees.
The contemporary culture of complaint by myriad groups demanding their “rights” didn’t arise from nothing. Although its emergence owed much to the millions of dollars spent by major Democratic donors such as George Soros, who wanted to change the culture (and who was reportedly tied to more than 50 groups involved in the “spontaneous” women’s anti-Trump march last weekend), it was institutionalised and validated by government agency funding.
On Friday, Theresa May is due in the US capital for talks with Mr Trump in his first meeting with a foreign leader. Mrs May might do well to overcome any aesthetic distaste she may have for the new occupant of the Oval Office and instead take a leaf out of the Trump playbook.
For what he is promoting is the classic conservative agenda of small government: protecting what is valuable, putting your own country first and defending your nation against its enemies. Unlike Mrs May, who seems to think the beneficent state can address systemic inequalities, what Mr Trump is not doing is telling Americans how to behave or trying to engineer a different kind of society.
However flawed he may turn out to be, the enormous popularity of his approach, which speaks to the everyday lives and concerns of ordinary people by being rooted in what is rather than in what should be, has the potential to wipe out the left.
Donald Trump rejects utopian ideologies. His intended programme amounts to a counter-revolution against identity politics, the grievance culture and a free pass to certain groups for bad behaviour. It stands instead for upholding the national and cultural identity that the left has spent half a century attempting to dismantle. That’s why they’re screaming.
_The Times_


----------



## manticle (25/1/17)

Where do you think the centre actually is?


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/1/17)

"Immediately after his inauguration the White House wiped off its website the pages on LGBT rights, civil rights, climate change and health care"

genius.

seriously, **** these people. Rolling climate science into what they view as a "liberal agenda" is not logically consistent.


----------



## damoninja (25/1/17)

lost at sea said:


> from the left???..... you need to lay off the glass barbie, have you seen who wields the power in this country at the moment? its not the clown at the top either.


Of course, because it's all those RIGHT wingers who are rioting, starting fires and assaulting people who don't agree with their views. 

The far left is just utter, utter hypocrisy. The values conflict and are only applied in isolation when it suits them. 

"Freedom of religion!"
"Equal rights!"
Freedom of religion + Equal rights = means I can choose a religion which is anti homosexual, and lefties can't say anything about it without disagreeing with themselves!

Much of theology is inherently conservative in its own respect, the idea of freedom of religion ALLOWS right wing values to exist. You can not have both.


----------



## Brewnicorn (25/1/17)

manticle said:


> Where do you think the centre actually is?


I guess therein lies the issue, both sides of politics fail to recognise the centre. It's also pretty easy to just use the left right as an accepted continuum when people's engagement politically likely borrows from many parties perspectives these days. I think that's where major parties fall by the way side these days when they fail to recognise change in the wind by being dogmatic. Trump's great fraud was to use the republican establishment as a bedrock for his 'change'. Populism got him to where he is. Populism and a flawed voting model. Just my two cents.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (25/1/17)

I'd be tickled pinko if our present lot of fuckers stopped trying to embezzle us with their expense claims, made big multinationals pay ANY tax at all and stopped ******* over the most vulnerable people in our society in the spurious name of budget repair.


----------



## Brewnicorn (25/1/17)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> I'd be tickled pinko if our present lot of fuckers stopped trying to embezzle us with their expense claims, made big multinationals pay ANY tax at all and stopped ******* over the most vulnerable people in our society in the spurious name of budget repair.


I absolutely agree and I ******* hate the idea that folks who never knew about superannuation til the end a of their working lives have to face the prospect of shrinking pensions and sun standard living arrangements and being called 'leaners' by these entitled bastards. Infuriates me.


----------



## DUANNE (25/1/17)

Jens-Kristian said:


> That's just so far off the mark.
> 
> I'm from Denmark and have both Swedish and German friends. Are there some little issues with it all? Sure. The main issues however, lie with the reporting of it, stirring up a storm over things which most people simply do not feel any impact from ever.
> 
> ...


so what your saying is if the media didnt report the incidents that happen then it really would be a safe left wing utopia? id call men armed with illegal automatic firearms shooting poeple and driving trucks into packed market places more than just "little issues". thats without the massive financial problems and homelessness being taken into account. lets not forget that trump and brexit where decisions made by the silent majority rather than the loud obnoxious left who cant stand to hear anything not of their own opinion.


----------



## 2cranky (25/1/17)

Brewnicorn said:


> I guess therein lies the issue, both sides of politics fail to recognise the centre. It's also pretty easy to just use the left right as an accepted continuum when people's engagement politically likely borrows from many parties perspectives these days. I think that's where major parties fall by the way side these days when they fail to recognise change in the wind by being dogmatic. Trump's great fraud was to use the republican establishment as a bedrock for his 'change'. Populism got him to where he is. Populism and a flawed voting model. Just my two cents.


Fear got him where he is. Same fear Pauline and One Nation use. So many disaffected groups it was inevitable that he could tap into their fears. And now with "Fake News" he can discredited any negative reporting which would bring more typical governments into line. But I do have some faith in peoples conscience not allowing them to follow blindly just to hold onto power.....wait...that never happens does it? :huh:


----------



## Brewnicorn (25/1/17)

There's more to the political spectrum to consider than right and left. I think fans of both sides have that to consider. There's good and bad (and evil) in all kinds of political behaviours. The same as in people's behaviours (surprise). The balance comes from the mix of opinions and that's not telling most people anything. But disparaging one side as consistently right/wrong just makes for a shit argument more than anything. I don't think the left advocates for terrorist attacks when they see the good in opening borders in a humanitarian crisis. More than I hope the right might see a military solution as being a precursor to the collapse of a political system and a refugee crisis. Swings and roundabouts and balance comes from the vote. I think there's a lot more to getting shit done than pushing the same old barrow.


----------



## yankinoz (25/1/17)

Over the years Trump has reversed course on many issues. Despite that waffling, at any one time he is absolute certain he is right, even if he has to imagine facts to back him up, never admits a mistake and dismisses all criticism with extreme prejudice. All very worrisome qualities in a leader. As for Pauline Hanson, she's equally addicted to alternative facts, but is not the narcissistic bully that Trump is.

One Nation appeals to the same core as Trump, strongest among White and rural voters. Hers are not nearly so numerous as Trump's (who are, let's not forget, a minority) or the Europopulists', but an economic crisis here could change that.


----------



## bradsbrew (25/1/17)

2cranky said:


> Fear got him where he is. Same fear Pauline and One Nation use. So many disaffected groups it was inevitable that he could tap into their fears. And now with "Fake News" he can discredited any negative reporting which would bring more typical governments into line. But I do have some faith in peoples conscience not allowing them to follow blindly just to hold onto power.....wait...that never happens does it? :huh:


It is not just the fear mongering, it is people being fed up with political leaders not following up on promises and selling out to foreign multinational companies for no real benefit for the economy or job growth.


----------



## Rocker1986 (25/1/17)

I think the far left and the far right are both a bunch of loonies. The far left are too quick to pander to minorities at the expense of the majority. They're too spineless to stand up to them because they don't want to "offend" anybody. I don't think minorities should be treated worse, but I don't think they should be treated better either. It should be the same rights and responsibilities for everybody, regardless. I have no problem with people from other countries, backgrounds etc. coming here to live. But, if you want the right to work then you have the responsibility not to stop every ******* hour to pray to an imaginary friend. I also think that given we're an English speaking country, if they plan to live here permanently they should be required to have at least a basic understanding of the language in order to communicate. There's nothing worse than trying to help someone at work, only to find I can't because they can't speak English so I've got no idea what they're talking about.

On the other hand, the far right spews its racist and intolerant hatred under the piss weak guise of "ending political correctness". What they're doing has nothing to do with political correctness. They just hate people from other races or religions or sexual persuasion for no real reason other than it's been brainwashed into them by their parents or whoever else. They think every Muslim on earth is a terrorist. They oppose gay marriage due to their religious beliefs (there really is no other reason for it, and even that one is a weak one), they oppose women's freedom of choice over their bodies, they dispute proven science because it disagrees with their opinion. These people aren't fit to lead anything, but neither are the far left.

There needs to be a balance between the two that's not too far either way. Tolerant but fair. Promote scientific research and discovery, because that's what will drive us forward. Push for a better education and healthcare system. Believe whatever fairy stories you want, but don't use it to influence legislation. Base legislation on logic and evidence, not emotion and fear. Don't be shut off to immigration, but if they do the wrong thing then turf those ones out rather than targetting the whole lot. I don't really know why balance like that is so difficult to grasp for so many on both sides.


----------



## Dave70 (25/1/17)

2cranky said:


> *Fear got him where he is. Same fear Pauline and One Nation use*. So many disaffected groups it was inevitable that he could tap into their fears. And now with "Fake News" he can discredited any negative reporting which would bring more typical governments into line. But I do have some faith in peoples conscience not allowing them to follow blindly just to hold onto power.....wait...that never happens does it? :huh:


And the antithesis of this seems to be elements of the far left trying to convince us that xenophobia, racism and sexism are endemic in our population institutionalized and interwoven into our laws and constitution.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (25/1/17)

We didn't want to upset anyone this Christmas past, so we celebrated Festivus instead.


----------



## lost at sea (25/1/17)

BEERHOG said:


> so what your saying is if the media didnt report the incidents that happen then it really would be a safe left wing utopia? id call men armed with illegal automatic firearms shooting poeple and driving trucks into packed market places more than just "little issues". thats without the massive financial problems and homelessness being taken into account. lets not forget that trump and brexit where decisions made by the silent majority rather than the loud obnoxious left who cant stand to hear anything not of their own opinion.


Sounds like you are describing america


----------



## Dave70 (25/1/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> We didn't want to upset anyone this Christmas past, so we celebrated Festivus instead.


Yep. You cant go wrong with ''happy holidays'' either.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/1/17)

Dave70 said:


> And the antithesis of this seems to be elements of the far left trying to convince us that xenophobia, racism and sexism are endemic in our population institutionalized and interwoven into our laws and constitution.


is that so far-fetched?


----------



## pcmfisher (25/1/17)

manticle said:


> Where do you think the centre actually is?


Directly in the middle between Tony Abbot and Julia Gillard. Its the reason they were both shocking prime ministers.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/1/17)

Going to be a fun 4 yrs


----------



## Dave70 (25/1/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> is that so far-fetched?


Not if all we focus on are individual or fringe acts of racism or sexism. There are no sexist or racist laws, its as simple as that. 
What we're really talking about is culture, not institutionalized discrimination.


----------



## manticle (25/1/17)

Just for reference - far left is extreme socialism/stalinism/marxism/anarcho-syndicalism which doesn't really apply to the contexts people continually use.
Far right = Fascism/national socialism/BNP/AAFI/KKK. Larouche is centrist because he's both extremes in one.

If you think Bob Brown is far left (or Turnbull extreme right), you need to do some reading so you can rely less on hyperbole and useless, irrelevant terms of reference.


----------



## 2cranky (25/1/17)

bradsbrew said:


> It is not just the fear mongering, it is people being fed up with political leaders not following up on promises and selling out to foreign multinational companies for no real benefit for the economy or job growth.


No its not fear mongering at all. The fear already exists. no jobs, rusted factories- lets close our boarders. horrific scenes of terrorism on the telly - lets ban burkas. These are real fears with over simplistic solutions, so voters can identify. Doesn't even matter that individual groups often contradict each other. Make a statement to align yourself with a group and they are on board.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/1/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> is that so far-fetched?


 


Dave70 said:


> Not if all we focus on are individual or fringe acts of racism or sexism. There are no sexist or racist laws, its as simple as that.
> What we're really talking about is culture, not institutionalized discrimination.


well yes I agree that it is generally cultural rather than the letter of the law, but the net effect is the same.


----------



## bradsbrew (25/1/17)

2cranky said:


> No its not fear mongering at all. The fear already exists. no jobs, rusted factories- lets close our boarders. horrific scenes of terrorism on the telly - lets ban burkas. These are real fears with over simplistic solutions, so voters can identify. Doesn't even matter that individual groups often contradict each other. Make a statement to align yourself with a group and they are on board.


Fear mongering is arousing/awaking existing fears.


----------



## warra48 (25/1/17)

manticle said:


> Where do you think the centre actually is?


About twice as far from the extreme left or extreme right as half its distance from either to the centre.


----------



## Dave70 (25/1/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> well yes I agree that it is generally cultural rather than the letter of the law, but the net effect is the same.


Its impossible to quantify that effect though. Did he / she not get the job because they were black / female? Or were they just not suitable for the position? If the HR guy has a history of hiring only hiring blonde caucasian females between the age of 18 - 25 and has Stormfront.org tucked away in his favorites, alarm bells should be ringing. 
I believe individuals should be permitted to be as bigoted and racist as they like. Its sorts itself out in the end because the vast majority of people aren't that way inclined. Racism by and large is demonstrably in decline worldwide. 
2017 Australia is a far less sexist and bigoted place than 1965 Australia.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (25/1/17)

This video came up on my FB page yesterday. The bloke makes some pretty good points.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/1/17)

Dave70 said:


> Its impossible to quantify that effect though. Did he / she not get the job because they were black / female? Or were they just not suitable for the position? If the HR guy has a history of hiring only hiring blonde caucasian females between the age of 18 - 25 and has Stormfront.org tucked away in his favorites, alarm bells should be ringing.
> I believe individuals should be permitted to be as bigoted and racist as they like. Its sorts itself out in the end because the vast majority of people aren't that way inclined. Racism by and large is demonstrably in decline worldwide.
> 2017 Australia is a far less sexist and bigoted place than 1965 Australia.


in some industries it will take more than time for bigotry, favouritism, and the old boys club attitude to fade into line with equality.
It can be subtle, but it only takes 1/2 a chance for that subtlety to translate into someone missing out on a job, promotion or pay rise.

and in terms of representative democracy - look how well not having quotas is working for the Liberal & National parties.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (25/1/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> look how well not having quotas is working for the Liberal & National parties.








Exhibit A


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/1/17)

nice cherry picking.

exhibit B:

http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2016/August/The_gender_composition_of_the_45th_parliament


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/1/17)

Labor is way in front


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/1/17)

because they have a resolution to eventually have 50% M:F split in parliament.


----------



## bradsbrew (25/1/17)

Shouldn't it be the best person for the job, not dependant on the male / female ratio?


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/1/17)

that gets to my point. The people selecting the candidates to endorse for each party will select based on a subconscious bias.
the end result is a representative democracy that is not representative.

JOBZ FOR DA BOIZ


----------



## Black Devil Dog (25/1/17)

Like a subconscious bias of selecting the best person for the job, or a subconscious bias of selecting someone to fill a quota?.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/1/17)

yeah that <_<
http://www.wsj.com/articles/gender-bias-at-work-turns-up-in-feedback-1443600759


----------



## bradsbrew (25/1/17)

Equality hey, where's the minister for men 


Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash


Minister for Employment
Minister for Women
Minister Assisting the Prime Minister for the Public Service
Senator for Western Australia


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/1/17)

do we need one?


----------



## wide eyed and legless (25/1/17)

Black Devil Dog said:


> This video came up on my FB page yesterday. The bloke makes some pretty good points.


Big Joe was bang on when he said 'Political Correctness is a disease'


----------



## wobbly (25/1/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> that gets to my point. The people selecting the candidates to endorse for each party will select based on a subconscious bias.
> the end result is a representative democracy that is not representative.
> 
> JOBZ FOR DA BOIZ


And the answer is????

Wobbly


----------



## bradsbrew (25/1/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> do we need one?


If we want to keep the ratio- yes.

So QLD has a female Premier and female Deputy Premier a female attorney general and female deputy attorney general. Should I as a male feel that I am not represented just because they are female?


----------



## Black Devil Dog (25/1/17)

The Fremantle Council is playing straight into the hands of the far right with this p.c nonsense regarding Australia Day celebrations. This stuff gives the likes of Hanson more fuel.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (25/1/17)

bradsbrew said:


> If we want to keep the ratio- yes.
> 
> So QLD has a female Premier and female Deputy Premier a female attorney general and female deputy attorney general. Should I as a male feel that I am not represented just because they are female?


probably not, currently 72% of the Qld legislative assembly are male. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Women_in_the_Queensland_Legislative_Assembly


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (25/1/17)

bradsbrew said:


> *Shouldn't it be the best person for the job*, not dependant on the male / female ratio?


Bahahahahaha....your soooooo funny Brad


----------



## damoninja (25/1/17)

bradsbrew said:


> Shouldn't it be the best person for the job, not dependant on the male / female ratio?


----------



## Dave70 (25/1/17)

bradsbrew said:


> Equality hey, where's the minister for men
> 
> Senator the Hon Michaelia Cash
> 
> ...


Wheres the minister for the 20.000 plus transgender people? Why cant they have equal representation? Should we have a three way split to make it fair? 


You see how this gets silly fast?


----------



## technobabble66 (25/1/17)

Who believes bullying is ok?
Who believes discrimination is ok?
Who believes racism is ok?
Is society simply a case of survival of the fittest?
If so, does it matter if someone starts 10 paces behind most others?

For those who believe everything's peachy and "political correctness" and the "progressive agenda" is a disease, why is there still such a large difference between the wage of a man compared to a woman? 
Why is there ANY difference? 
(& don't obtusely cherry pick an occupation involving rigorous physical demands - I mean broad areas like the entire finance industry). 

Political correctness is solely about minimizing discrimination & bullying. 
How can this be a bad thing?
Racism is simply bullying and corruption under a different guise. 
In all things there can be dickheads who push things too far or have their heads up their arses, so of course there will be some examples of political correctness being pushed too far. This sort of stuff obviously needs to be rebalanced by common sense. And sometimes these things can take a while to play out. 
But if you actually stop and think about it, do you honestly think the way our society has progressed in the last 50 years is all bad?? 
So why throw the baby out with the bath water? 
Laziness?? Too difficult to consider the detail? Or factual data? Complicated things like why virtually all ethnic groups have integrated happily into Australian society but a small number of individuals from a few ethnic or religious groups are causing trouble. Or why is it all major destructive "terror" incidences in Australia have been due to mental instability of an individual rather than an organized terrorist group? (& yes, I know ASIO/AFP have rooted out a 3-4 threats in the last decade, but I hope you can still appreciate the point I'm making). 
Yep, much easier to pick on the coloured guy or religion. Oh no, wait, I'm not meant to because of this PC crap. So I'll just pick on that instead. 

The core emotion of the Anti-PC movement seems to simply be selfishness. Pure and simple. (Maybe with laziness mixed in).
Now white Christian males have to share their pie, that they've completely owned for centuries, with other people - women, other races, other religions. And it sucks! And it feels like their pie's been stolen from them! And this PC crap is to blame. 

And wtf is the "progressive agenda"?!? Have I missed a memo in the last decade or so. A letter from the gubberment, perhaps? 
I believe I'm a fairly contemporary thinker. I've never heard of an actual agenda I'm meant to be following. I just think for myself. Common sense stuff, along the lines of: "bullying and discrimination are destructive social forces and should be minimized wherever reasonably possible." "If that was me, how would I feel?" then "If that was me *from their background* how would I feel?"
Here's a tip: anyone who's confidently tossing around a term like "Progressive Agenda" likely has a manipulative agenda of their own, if they're having to make up such a fictional simplification. Do yourself a favour, switch them off and think for yourself. 

How can Australians honestly think multiculturalism is bad for our society?
Maybe it's a generational thing. 

Fwiw, I agree our politicians seem particularly poor over the last decade, both in their individual capacity and the philosophy of their parties. 
I can only hope the shakeup in the U.S. will be a wake up call to the individuals and parties that more needs to be achieved in real outcomes, and the public needs to be more informed & educated in what issues we face & how to overcome these problems. 

Fight emotional ignorance with education and intellect, not just opposing emotional ignorance.


----------



## lost at sea (25/1/17)

technobabble66 said:


> Who believes bullying is ok?
> Who believes discrimination is ok?
> Who believes racism is ok?
> Is society simply a case of survival of the fittest?
> ...



i tip my hat to you techno, you echo my exact thoughts and worded it better than i could ever have. 

well said.


----------



## damoninja (25/1/17)

**** me can't people just say "let's not be c*nts" and get on with their lives? 

Discrimination exists but it's not the epidemic that people say. Especially not the extreme feminist agenda. 



technobabble66 said:


> For those who believe everything's peachy and "political correctness" and the "progressive agenda" is a disease, why is there still such a large difference between the wage of a man compared to a woman?
> Why is there ANY difference?


Too true! There is a gap... *Women working part time jobs earn more than men*, we need to even that out! Stop giving all the part time jobs to women, people! Equality!!!

When you drill in to the studies, the _hourly _wages that men and women are paid are marginally different. But if you work less, then it stands to reason you get paid less.,, right? 

A woman can take 12+ months off when she has a child, earning $0 year dragging the average down. Women who _choose_ not to work do affect this average whether feminists like it or not. 

I'm not at all against the idea of 12 months paid maternity leave, 6 months for one partner 6 months for the other, you know, in the interest of equality. 




technobabble66 said:


> (& don't obtusely cherry pick an occupation involving rigorous physical demands - I mean broad areas like the entire finance industry).


Finance industry seems like a rather direct cherry pick to me, the health industry is dominated by women. 

We don't complain when nursing is dominated by women, we shouldn't complain when physics is dominated by men. 

And what's to say a woman can't work in physically demanding / dangerous jobs? Like the police force? Or armed forces? Or construction? Or mining? Are they not capable? They _can_, but more than men _choose _not to. The world I live in is one where we respect choices and don't make people's choices for them. Though ironically if you go left just enough you arrive at communism and here you are, handing out jobs to those you see fit to do them.





> Yep, much easier to pick on the coloured guy or religion. Oh no, wait, I'm not meant to because of this PC crap. So I'll just pick on that instead.


You can't discriminate against a person's religion, to do so wouldn't be right....... 

A person allowed to be religious. 

A person is allowed to be gay.

A religion says homosexuality is not allowed. 

Therefore, it's okay to discriminate against homosexuals if you follow this religion. 

Otherwise you're discriminating against the religion. 

And the retard roller coaster goes round and round




technobabble66 said:


> Fight emotional ignorance with education and intellect, not just opposing emotional ignorance.


The problem seems to be is in both directions there is (not you personally) lack education and intellect, we're left with not much more than a bunch of angry sheep.


----------



## Brownsworthy (25/1/17)

I was a Nurse for around 13yrs and I was paid exactly the same as the women.


----------



## Camo6 (25/1/17)

Brownsworthy said:


> I was a Nurse for around 13yrs and I was paid exactly the same as the women.


Bet you weren't asked for as many sponge baths though.


----------



## wereprawn (25/1/17)

damoninja said:


> **** me can't people just say "let's not be c*nts" and get on with their lives?
> 
> Discrimination exists but it's not the epidemic that people say. Especially not the extreme feminist agenda.
> 
> ...


I tend to agree with your comment but c'mon most women aren't as physically strong as men of the same weight. Its just a biological fact. Most healthy young men could lift half their body weight above their head, whereas most women would struggle . Some jobs require strength and as such, are male dominated . 

edit- After re-reading I see where your coming from.


----------



## Rocker1986 (25/1/17)

Political correctness isn't about minimising bullying and discrimination, it's about watering shit down to such a generic and sanitized state so as to not offend anyone. 

Minimising bullying and discrimination is a good thing. Political correctness needs to **** off and die.


----------



## Dave70 (25/1/17)

technobabble66 said:


> Who believes bullying is ok?
> Who believes discrimination is ok?
> Who believes racism is ok?
> Is society simply a case of survival of the fittest?
> ...


----------



## wide eyed and legless (25/1/17)

Rocker1986 said:


> Political correctness needs to **** off and die.


The reason political correctness exists, is to make those who use it feel good about themselves.


----------



## Brownsworthy (25/1/17)

Camo6 said:


> Bet you weren't asked for as many sponge baths though.


Plenty of times! From patients and nurses even sexually harassed by Female bosses and staff members.


----------



## damoninja (25/1/17)

Dave70 said:


> > Have a listen to Nobel Prize winning economist Miltom Freedmans spin on equal pay. Quite a different perspective.


----------



## damoninja (25/1/17)

Dave70 said:


> How can Australians honestly think multiculturalism is bad for our society? Because we use the term multi-cultural when what we really mean is multi-ethnicity. If you don't want people of a certain race living in your society, you are by definition a racist. If on the other hand you dont want people with cultural beliefs that censure homosexuals, riot over cartoons and treat women as chattel living in your society, then you have every justification to demand they give up these practices or moove on. Some cultures are simply more conducive to human flourishing than others.


People just don't know what culture is

Culture is everything, everywhere, always throughout society, 

Your workplace has its own micro culture

This forum has its own culture

Those family "traditions" every one has, family culture

Eating lamb tomorrow, is cultural, not that it's of many cultures but itself is culture.


----------



## damoninja (25/1/17)

Sorry guys I have to to drown in some bleach for a bit

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFxUhTPzz_8


----------



## wynnum1 (26/1/17)

One of the seventy-two _virgins_ in _paradise_.


----------



## neal32 (26/1/17)

technobabble66 said:


> Who believes bullying is ok?
> Who believes discrimination is ok?
> Who believes racism is ok?
> Is society simply a case of survival of the fittest?
> ...


Urgh. 
Here's a couple of good links by people smarter then you and I. If you read/listen to both of them I can't help but think you'll change alot of the views, however if you read/listen to both and still have the same views, so be it.

http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=hire_women

http://podcasts.joerogan.net/#/podcasts/jordan-peterson


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/1/17)

I must say...there is a distinct lack of female train drivers.


----------



## goomboogo (26/1/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I must say...there is a distinct lack of female train drivers.


More female train drivers may be one way to reduce the enormous pay packets of train drivers.


----------



## goomboogo (26/1/17)

Dave70 said:


> > Have a listen to Nobel Prize winning economist Miltom Freedmans spin on equal pay. Quite a different perspective.
> >
> > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hsIpQ7YguGE


Friedman's spin on equal pay was as botched as most of his theorising. He back-tracked on so much in his later life as he could no longer defend assertions proven to be patently false in the real world. In this particular presentation he doesn't even realise his use of the phrase, 'equal pay for equal work' doesn't accord with his proceeding description of the workplace. The examples he uses are not cases of people doing equal work and are therefore not relevant to the topic of whether 2 people doing the same job at the same performance level should receive the same level of remuneration.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/1/17)

goomboogo said:


> More female train drivers may be one way to reduce the enormous pay packets of train drivers.



damoninja

"Too true! There is a gap... *Women working part time jobs earn more than men".......*

Cant be having women earning $150k driving trains part time


----------



## wobbly (26/1/17)

You would have to ask your self what a lot/most of the above, train drivers pay rates included, have anything to do with Donald Trump being good or otherwise for America.

Those that invest in the stock market believe he is a good thing with the Dow reaching it's highest point ever at over 20,000 and also having risen by 9% since his election and the Australian market hasn't done too bad in spite of all the Dooms Day predictions

Wobbly


----------



## Dave70 (26/1/17)

goomboogo said:


> Friedman's spin on equal pay was as botched as most of his theorising. He back-tracked on so much in his later life as he could no longer defend assertions proven to be patently false in the real world. In this particular presentation he doesn't even realise his use of the phrase, 'equal pay for equal work' doesn't accord with his proceeding description of the workplace. The examples he uses are not cases of people doing equal work and are therefore not relevant to the topic of whether 2 people doing the same job at the same performance level should receive the same level of remuneration.


I'd argue on balance Freidman got his theorizing it right more often than he ''botched'' it. But I'm an enthusiastic capitalist and lover of personal freedom, so admit 100% bias on my part.


----------



## goomboogo (26/1/17)

I acknowledge my views on Friedman are a result of particular perspective or bias if you prefer. Friedman and others from the Chicago School trusted in the concept of free markets to the point where they were/are convinced that self-regulation results in an optimal outcome. This self-regulatory framework would increase the ability of corporations and financial institutions to be as inventive as possible and subsequently lead to benefits for shareholders and non-shareholders alike.This idea formed the basis for much of the work carried out by Friedman.

This was largely allowed to be played out in the real world. The result of minimal regulation and inventiveness was not a boon for shareholders and non-shareholders alike. It was the GFC. This was as major a botch in theory as you get.


----------



## damoninja (26/1/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> damoninja
> 
> "Too true! There is a gap... *Women working part time jobs earn more than men".......*
> 
> Cant be having women earning $150k driving trains part time


You've misunderstood, women working part time earn more money than men working part time. 

It's because they work more part time hours. 

I was just demonstrating that the conclusions drawn around pay gap are taken out of context, once you have a fact in isolation you can say stupid shit like I just did about increasing amount of part time hours men work.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (26/1/17)

Are there any women here

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZNeq2Utm0nU


----------



## Maheel (26/1/17)

Well i think there should be no pay gap and more needs to be done to ensure people are paid the same for the same job.
Removing names from resumes could start to help unconscious bias.......

100% for sure many many many professional women are not paid the same as men doing the same job.

100% sure major companies with more women on there board of directors are more profitable than like companies with less women on Brd Dir

100% sure i want these issues sorted for my wife and daughter.....

more money equal pay in my wifes pay packet means more brew gear for me (and just sorts out pay gaps) thats good for nearly every family (sorry maybe not gay man love people...) 

100% sure am glad my daughter is growing up now compared to history it's still pretty shithouse for woman out there but it's getting maybe a little better.

(still shithouse for things like sexual harassment, violence, inequality, etc etc etc etc and the 1950's -> 2000 were still pretty shit with many things.... )


----------



## manticle (26/1/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> The reason political correctness exists, is to make those who use it feel good about themselves.


The reason it exists is because bigots invented it to ridicule the idea that calling people racial based derogatory nicknames was not their birthright.

In my view people have the right to be racist arseholes but they need to suck it up when they get called one.

And Milton Friedman is a smug prick with the empathy level of a stuffed ham so **** him, Dave.

Trump speaks like a 12 year old girl - zomg it was so amazing, so great, everything is so great really great, amazing.

Even Pauline seems mildly more elequent even if she does cry about lamb ads. Oh yeah but the left are all pussy sooks, right?


----------



## Dave70 (26/1/17)

manticle said:


> And Milton Friedman is a smug prick with the empathy level of a stuffed ham so **** him, Dave.


I dont actually believe in empathy, or presuming to 'know just how someone feels'. Sympathy, fair enough, but at the end of the day the fact is that we all suffer alone regardless. 
Friedman is certainly a polarizing thinker, or smug prick if you prefer. 

I hope your not having a rough day, cos you sound a little prickly this afternoon. 
Or drinkin.


----------



## manticle (26/1/17)

Drinkin' indeed. That, watching ufc fights and finding absurdity in life. Not really prickly although these threads bring out the abrasive side for sure. Every time I read them, my inner voice shouts 'don't post'. I'm still a happy go lucky scamp just like Bernard Black.

Empathy is different to assuming you know how someone feels, just as sympathy is more than pitying the poor fool who isn't quite as good as you are. I agree with many of the principles of social libertarianism but Friedman makes me wonder just exactly what he believes the role of government should be.


----------



## Mattress (26/1/17)

technobabble66 said:


> For those who believe everything's peachy and "political correctness" and the "progressive agenda" is a disease, why is there still such a large difference between the wage of a man compared to a woman?
> Why is there ANY difference?
> (& don't obtusely cherry pick an occupation involving rigorous physical demands - I mean broad areas like the entire finance industry).


I'll let these guys explain it to you 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gvFi3A1GIJ8


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XlR6CdJtRWM


----------



## spog (26/1/17)

While in Canada I soon realised not to mention Trump, fark the Canadians get really vocal.
The vast majority are very very worried about what will/could happen with him in the big house, and none had a nice or kind word to say about him.
Glad I live in Aus......?


----------



## Blind Dog (26/1/17)

Dave70 said:


> I dont actually believe in empathy, or presuming to 'know just how someone feels'. Sympathy, fair enough, but at the end of the day the fact is that we all suffer alone regardless.


My dad always said that sympathy is just allowing someone to wallow in their own self pity, and empathy is when you try to join them. Mind you, he saw about the worst of humanity in his time, so probably has a fairly unique view.


----------



## Rocker1986 (27/1/17)

Whatever its reason for existence, it has gone way too far when you have idiots trying to change the title/words of a well known nursery rhyme because it contains the word "black", or telling kids that they can't call themselves girls and boys anymore, and should instead use something as dumb as "little people" or whatever. What kind of fucktard comes up with this shit? That's political correctness (clearly gone mad) and that's the sort of idiotic shit that needs to be turfed out of society altogether.


----------



## manticle (27/1/17)

That thing about black in poems (eg baa baa rainbow sheep) is untrue (or at least massively exaggerated) and oft touted as 'pc gone madder than Ken Bruce' so readers of the daily mail can get outraged.

Yes there are some silly examples and I'm not a fan of some of the legislation (racial vilification on principle for example) but the majority is simply an effort not to be rude and accepting responsibility for what you say or write.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (27/1/17)

Got to laugh at Trumps logic

" we are going to build a wall and Mexico will pay for.....by....America putting a %20 tarif on all imported goods from Mexico"

So it looks like the great consumers of the USA will pay for the wall


----------



## Droopy Brew (27/1/17)

manticle said:


> Trump speaks like a 12 year old girl - zomg it was so amazing, so great, everything is so great really great, amazing.


Yep. You will enjoy this then...


----------



## manticle (27/1/17)

That was great, it's true.


----------



## warra48 (27/1/17)

manticle said:


> That was great, it's true.


That was fun, I even understood all the Dutch language stuff. Is it politically correct to claim bilingual ability?


----------



## Brownsworthy (27/1/17)

You might be bilingual but Trump has the best words


----------



## Droopy Brew (27/1/17)

Bilingual isnt even a real word, its fake, made up. Its true.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (27/1/17)

A bit of politically incorrect humour, aimed at Aussies.

If it was done the other way around, there would be hell to pay by the guilt ridden, sobbing left.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (27/1/17)

Black Devil Dog said:


> A bit of politically incorrect humour, aimed at Aussies.
> 
> If it was done the other way around, there would be hell to pay by the guilt ridden, sobbing left.


I love that series


----------



## wynnum1 (27/1/17)

Is Donald Trump related to Clive Palmer seem to have a lot in common the wall may be his titanic.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/1/17)

Every world leader.....



And I just got back from the pub....they had an excellent live band.......


----------



## Black Devil Dog (28/1/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Every world leader.....And I just got back from the pub....they had an excellent live band.......


You went to the pub with every world leader?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (28/1/17)

Black Devil Dog said:


> You went to the pub with every world leader?


Of course I did....what else does one do on a friday night

This aint Nazi Germany where they can control the media and tell the people that its fake news and the facts are just alternative

And dont forget that the Mexican wall will be paid for by Americans buying goods from Mexico...

On alternate facts, the Mexican President mutually agreed not to have a meeting with Pres Trump about the wall


----------



## Camo6 (28/1/17)

manticle said:


> That thing about black in poems (eg baa baa rainbow sheep) is untrue (or at least massively exaggerated) and oft touted as 'pc gone madder than Ken Bruce' so readers of the daily mail can get outraged.



Nope. It's true. Or at least in my kids school and in other's I know. Remember that old kookaburra in the ole gumtree? How happy his life is now that he freed himself of the gaiety he so suffered before.
I hope Donald ups the production of cotton because we're not gonna have enough to wrap these kids in before long.


----------



## manticle (28/1/17)

Well people are dumb.
And gay.
**** 'em


----------



## Mattress (28/1/17)

manticle said:


> Well people are dumb.
> And gay.
> **** 'em


You're making jokes about gay males and sex?

Come on guys, I thought we were better than this.


----------



## manticle (28/1/17)

I'm worse


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (3/2/17)

Mmmm...been watching events with Trump


I am pretty sure he is way out of his depth...


He sure is making himself look like an idiot


----------



## Danscraftbeer (3/2/17)

People voted for a spectacle. He has to save face now doesn't he? Or he just wouldn't be Trump! 
Give him some credit he really has raised the bar on reality TV theme.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (3/2/17)

Danscraftbeer said:


> People voted for a testicle.


FTFY


----------



## wide eyed and legless (3/2/17)

Danscraftbeer said:


> People voted for a spectacle. He has to save face now doesn't he? Or he just wouldn't be Trump!
> Give him some credit he really has raised the bar on reality TV theme.


Plus he's doing what he said he would do, which are the things that got him over the line, better than our PM who still hasn't stopped sitting on his hands since he got into power.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (3/2/17)

Well time will tell. The world is better off with leaders who can exercise diplomacy. Defusing rather than lighting fuses. Things last good for longer that way for everyone. It may seem like sitting on hands but its complications go beyond any of us normal folk could imagine.
Our PM didn't hesitate to stand up for our interests up against the new angry man. Whatever the deal is over doesn't matter really but that was the crunch moment and I think higher of our Prime minister than the trump. Go Aussie! :beerbang:


----------



## madpierre06 (3/2/17)

Didn't Turnbull originally say that it was a beautifully cordial conversation? And I'm wondering how much more valuable for oZ it would have been if Beazley was still there rather than Lib party sycophant Hockey who has all the diplomacy skills of the original mad Pierre.


----------



## abyss (3/2/17)

Politicians world wide in my opinion are the Mafia who want to line their own deep pockets with the people's hard earned cash.
If your not feeding the fuckers money, they send the soldiers out to fine or tax the average punters who are the easy targets.
**** em all.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (3/2/17)

We're probably witnessing the collapse of the American empire, in fast forward.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (3/2/17)

Nah that's a bit melodramatic. How about America may have to resolve taking a leaf out of Au's book lately. 
A leader gets so unpopular they get the boot now! rather than waiting for another election. 
Oh they cant do that though we are just a bunch of bushwacking hicks and wannabe crusaders on social media.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (4/2/17)

Turnbull the Lawyer v Trump the Business man


Back a lawyer every time



Trump will have trouble using business tactics in government ......and it will be M'erica's downfall


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (4/2/17)

The businessman remembers every debt that is outstanding.

Turnbull made him eat a nasty shit sandwich about a deal that he did not broker.

The importance of the US/Australia alliance will be amplified by Trump when he calls in his debt.

That will be Australian boots on the ground somewhere in harm's way. Turnbull is miles out of his depth in these games.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (4/2/17)

This is true


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (4/2/17)

http://www.azquotes.com/picture-quotes/quote-if-there-was-a-university-degree-for-greed-you-*****-would-all-get-first-class-honours-paul-keating-98-94-63.jpg


----------



## wide eyed and legless (4/2/17)

Black Devil Dog said:


> We're probably witnessing the collapse of the American empire, in fast forward.


America has been in decline for a while now, might be a race to the bottom with the EU.

The point about Trump is he put his policy's forward and that is what the people voted on, I realise that when you have 12% of Americans believing that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife Trump probably picked up that 12 % but like him or loathe him he is driven, rightly or wrongly by the courage of his convictions, where as Malcolm still is under the illusion he is in some sort of popularity contest, so to do something and get it wrong, to Malcolm is far worse than doing nothing.


----------



## Bribie G (4/2/17)

For the duration of this farce I'm no longer buying any American made or owned products. Sorry Wyeast, Murrican hops etc. Going through my supermarket brands list - fortunately I buy hardly any processed foods. Brunswick Sardines, you are safe


----------



## manticle (4/2/17)

That'll show 'em.


----------



## Bribie G (4/2/17)

If 6 billion people did that, it would show 'em.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (4/2/17)

It's about first impressions but also about picking your battles.

Turnbull wants to create a Strong negotiator' first impression, which he has certainly done. However whether this 'battle' was the one to choose is questionable. The next favour we want from the US (worlds biggest economy) may not be so forthcoming.

I suppose at the end of the day at least there may be some light at the end of the tunnel for those poor people locked up in camps. They are human beings after all.


----------



## manticle (4/2/17)

Unfortunately Bribie- if such a boycott started to have any real effect, it would start with the people at the bottom and do a very poor job of trickling up.


----------



## Brewnicorn (4/2/17)

madpierre06 said:


> And I'm wondering how much more valuable for oZ it would have been if Beazley was still there rather than Lib party sycophant Hockey who has all the diplomacy skills of the original mad Pierre.


Hockey's most impressive attribute is his ability to sweat from his upper lip. Can't see an upside...


----------



## manticle (4/2/17)

OT but did the topic title get edited from Hillary to Hilary?

'Cos it's Hillary.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (4/2/17)

Who's Hillary?


----------



## manticle (4/2/17)

The person with 2 million more votes than the muppet with the toupee.


----------



## warra48 (4/2/17)

manticle said:


> OT but did the topic title get edited from Hillary to Hilary?
> 
> 'Cos it's Hillary.


It might be Hillary, but Hilary is short for Hilariously deluded.


----------



## Weizguy (4/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> America has been in decline for a while now, might be a race to the bottom with the EU.
> 
> The point about Trump is he put his policy's forward and that is what the people voted on, I realise that when you have 12% of Americans believing that Joan of Arc was Noah's wife Trump probably picked up that 12 % but DESPISE him or loathe him he is driven, rightly or wrongly by the courage of his convictions, where as Malcolm still is under the illusion he is in some sort of popularity contest, so to do something and get it wrong, to Malcolm is far worse than doing nothing.


FTFY.



good4whatAlesU said:


> It's about first impressions but also about picking your battles.
> 
> Turnbull wants to create a Strong negotiator' first impression, which he has certainly done. However whether this 'battle' was the one to choose is questionable. The next favour we want from the US (worlds biggest economy) may not be so forthcoming.
> 
> I suppose at the end of the day at least there may be some light at the end of the tunnel for those poor people locked up in camps. They are human beings after all.


Turnbull knows that you have to go hard in a first encounter with a bully or they think they have you by the nuts, forever.... in my experience.



warra48 said:


> It might be Hillary, but Hilary is short for Hilariously deluded.


Tried to give you a like, but there is apparently a system-based limitation to how much appreciation I can show here, on a daily basis. Shame...


----------



## good4whatAlesU (4/2/17)

manticle said:


> The person with 2 million more votes than the muppet with the toupee.


Yesterdays girl.


----------



## Black Devil Dog (4/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Who's Hillary?


----------



## goomboogo (4/2/17)

Yep, that's the one. If only the most recent U.S Presidential election was between Hilary Duff and Donald Duck.


----------



## abyss (4/2/17)

Looks like she uses the same hair tonic as President Gump.


----------



## goomboogo (4/2/17)

abyss said:


> Looks like she uses the same hair tonic as President Gump.


This is a serious question. Would you rather have dinner with Hilary Duff or Donald Trump?


----------



## manticle (4/2/17)

If I get to poison the food, give me big don.


----------



## goomboogo (4/2/17)

manticle said:


> If I get to poison the food, give me big don.


The rumour is that he's not very big at all. Not that this has an effect on a potential poisoning. This could be a TV show; 100 ways to poison Donald Trump whilst using a dinner date with Hilary Duff as an alibi.


----------



## peekaboo_jones (4/2/17)

abyss said:


> Looks like she uses the same hair tonic as President Gump.


either way I'd smash this one


----------



## Black Devil Dog (5/2/17)

I'd like to give her a pearl necklace to complement the diamond one she's wearing.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (5/2/17)

**** Dinner lets float the idea of a BrexUS. I mean ANZUS is soo old hat - its like a loser of a deal - possibly the worst deal ever! China is our number one trading partner and the predominant military power on the planet and that's awesome. They could wipe the floor with the US whether we are still clinging to their bootstraps or not. Trump wants to cancel the joint strike fighter programme that has been costing us a bomb for a dud piece of military hardware and we could just do a bulk by on the good stuff that China makes that shits all over Lockhead Martin toys for a fraction of the cost. Much the same way as we get our mini kegs from them and all of us have discovered an unabiding devotion to those cute little Chinese mini kegs. 

Doonald, hey I am talking to you, you redundant, flabby, grey, pointy hairpiece douchebag - you're FIRED, clunk!


----------



## damoninja (5/2/17)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> **** Dinner lets float the idea of a BrexUS.


Calexit. 

Probably actually going to happen. 

California has been floating the idea of succession for years now and has taken the initial steps toward it with plans to reach the goal by 2019.

The state alone has a GDP of USD$2.5 trillion with the overall highest rate of taxes (rightly so, I might add). 6th largest economy in the world and over 13% of the US GDP.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (5/2/17)

Black Devil Dog said:


>


Never fails to amaze me what you can make with just one rib.


----------



## madpierre06 (5/2/17)

Black Devil Dog said:


> I'd like to give her a pearl necklace to complement the diamond one she's wearing.


Gee mate, I thought we were better than that here. probably helps answer the old thread of why there's no women brewers here.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (5/2/17)

I vote for more women brewers. They are a rare gem that does seem to be regrettably absent.


----------



## manticle (5/2/17)

Absent from here, not absent.


----------



## Dave70 (6/2/17)

What a slap in the face. Trump briskly issued a harsh tweet. As is his style. 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2017/02/04/donald-trump-slams-so-called-judge-blocked-ban-vows-overturn/


----------



## Brewnicorn (6/2/17)

They hold no one to account for mass shootings... Precedent favours the Judge. Punish the actor, not the executive or the judicial. Ah fresh Democracy eh! Bet that f*cking burns for him.


----------



## Dave70 (6/2/17)

Trump only endorses his mate Putins brand of democracy.


----------



## manticle (6/2/17)

Bad.
Big bada bad.
Boom.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (6/2/17)

Howard;

"We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances which they come"...

Sound familiar? .. 

Granted though,.. he was not talking about people with passports like Trump is.

I wonder what Howards view on the current situation is?


----------



## stm (6/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Howard;
> 
> "We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances which they come"...


That's pretty much what Bill Clinton and Barack Obama said in major speeches during their presidencies.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (6/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> Trump only endorses his mate Putins brand of democracy.


You can't have a good democracy if you can't torture and kill a few people.
Or in Bashar al-Assad's case commit genocide while everyone is more interested in Trump's policies, mind boggles.


----------



## madpierre06 (6/2/17)

There's some pretty decent genocide going on just up the road which our own bastard pollies conveniently turn a blind eye to for whatever reasons they might justify with. And we'll elt the cold blooded murder of some Oz journos go through to the keeper as well.


----------



## Dave70 (6/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Howard;
> 
> *"We will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances which they come"*...
> 
> ...


And rightly so, at least from a vetting perspective.


----------



## Dave70 (6/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> You can't have a good democracy if you can't torture and kill a few people.
> Or in *Bashar al-Assad's *case commit genocide while everyone is more interested in Trump's policies, mind boggles.


Or as Hitchens referred to him, "human toothbrush, the slobbering dauphin son of a slobbering tyrant". _Ouch_..


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (6/2/17)

Trump is picking a fight with the US Supreme Court





Probably not the smartest move


----------



## Dave70 (6/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Probably not the smartest move


Wait...........I think see a pattern of behavior forming...


----------



## JDW81 (6/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Trump is picking a fight with the US Supreme Court


And their so-called Judges.....


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (6/2/17)

Trump will have alternate Judges


----------



## wynnum1 (6/2/17)

Has president Trump looked at amendment to the constitution Monty Python bridge of death for refuges three questions.


----------



## JDW81 (6/2/17)

What, is your favourite colour?


----------



## JDW81 (6/2/17)

What is the airspeed velocity of an un-laden swallow?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (6/2/17)

African or European ?


----------



## manticle (6/2/17)

Bad


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (6/2/17)

manticle said:


> Bad


Yes, we all know the air speed velocity of any swallow carrying a coconut will be bad.

Its not like were stupid or nuffin


----------



## manticle (6/2/17)

Really bad.

It's true.

Stop using coconuts.


----------



## Dave70 (7/2/17)

wynnum1 said:


> Has president Trump looked at amendment to the constitution Monty Python bridge of death for refuges three questions.


Have you ever written lyrics for Tori Amos? 

Never was a cornflake girl
Thought that was a good solution
Hangin' with the raisin' girls
She's gone to the other side


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (7/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> Have you ever written lyrics for Tori Amos?
> 
> Never was a cornflake girl
> Thought that was a good solution
> ...



Man....that is so deep...so very deep


----------



## Dave70 (7/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Man....that is so deep...so very deep


I know, I know.

Do you think she's saying we should get more fiber in our diets?
Holds a grudge against Dr John Harvey Kellogg?
Drink straw wine for breakfast?


----------



## manticle (7/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> Have you ever written lyrics for Tori Amos?
> 
> Never was a cornflake girl
> Thought that was a good solution
> ...


Wynnum's post makes sense when sung to that tune.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (7/2/17)

Sitting on a corn flake waiting for the van to come, John Lennon had a thing about Kellogg, doop doop de joop.


----------



## tugger (7/2/17)

If America runs on Arab oil wouldn't you not want to piss the Arabs off. 
They could be like the soup nazi, no oil for you.


----------



## mofox1 (7/2/17)

manticle said:


> Wynnum's post makes sense when sung to that tune.


Lol.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (7/2/17)

tugger said:


> If America runs on Arab oil wouldn't you not want to piss the Arabs off.
> They could be like the soup nazi, no oil for you.


I was reading America produces more oil and gas than Saudi Arabia and Russia combined, then again Trump didn't include Saudi Arabia in his 120 day visa
cancellations, definitely out of order cancelling those who already had visa's, he should eat some humble pie over that one.


----------



## Dave70 (7/2/17)

tugger said:


> If America runs on Arab oil wouldn't you not want to piss the Arabs off.
> They could be like the soup nazi, no oil for you.


America could care less about Arab oil. They only source about 13% of it from the middle east. 
More worrying for the Saudis would be the US saying, no technology for you, or give us back our $117 billion you owe as since the arse has fallen out of oil, you guys are suspect..


----------



## JDW81 (7/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> he should eat some humble pie over that one.


Somehow I don't think Trump and humble will ever appear in the same sentence...


----------



## Mardoo (7/2/17)

What America gives a shit about is the ability of the Saudis to throw the world economy in one direction or another.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (7/2/17)

JDW81 said:


> Somehow I don't think Trump and humble will ever appear in the same sentence...


Agree, he is not a 'Humble Pie' kind of guy more 'Pie in the Sky'. But it is going to get interesting, I could never see Hilary revving up and getting into the drivers seat, it would have been another 4 years of suspended animation, America has already had 8 years of that. If Trump doesn't get shot, blown to bits or poisoned, and nothing eventuates then he will be voted out, can't beat a democratic system.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (7/2/17)

I cringed to hear that may happen here, again! That would be four Prime ministers in a row. That ridiculous actually. Who would want to be prime minister of Australia when you cant run the country. Rather the eccentricities of social media does. :huh:


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (7/2/17)

Mardoo said:


> What America gives a shit about is the ability of the Saudis to throw the world economy in one direction or another.


What America gives a shit about is America, and Trump personifies that to a T

They have only given a **** about themselves

The next few decades will be interesting watching the USA slowly loose grip on the thing that made them important


----------



## manticle (7/2/17)

Don't confuse an entire nation with its foreign policy.

God/spag monster/giant fairy forbid that anyone equate me with our pms/politicians/refugee policy/gay marriage policy/cory bernardi's version of common sense.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (7/2/17)




----------



## good4whatAlesU (7/2/17)

Ultimately Trump needs to operate within the guidelines of the American Constitution which promotes civil liberties. If he doesn't he will be legally challenged at every step.

He can attempt to change the constitution, but that requires several difficult steps culminating in a house of reps vote requiring a 2/3 majority to pass. Very unlikely.

More likely he will install his own judges as patsies to foil or slow down legal challenges. But ultimately the constitution should be upheld.


----------



## manticle (7/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


>


Stop grovelling


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (7/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> More likely he will install his own judges as patsies to foil or slow down legal challenges. But ultimately the constitution should be upheld.


He cant sack them all and appoint his own in one hit

"He could try, but it wont go down well" according to one of Hitlers aids


----------



## Blind Dog (7/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


>


Is that Yob skydiving?


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (7/2/17)

Danscraftbeer said:


> I cringed to hear that may happen here, again! That would be four Prime ministers in a row. That ridiculous actually.


Yep, a few more bad poll numbers for Turnbull, a humiliating loss in the WA State Election, some consolidating support for One Nation and the Libs will be wanting a major lurch to the right. Which makes for a perfect storm for someone who knows a thing or two about Time Warping...


----------



## yankinoz (8/2/17)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> Yep, a few more bad poll numbers for Turnbull, a humiliating loss in the WA State Election, some consolidating support for One Nation and the Libs will be wanting a major lurch to the right. Which makes for a perfect storm for someone who knows a thing or two about Time Warping...


Pauline appeals to voters for much the same reasons as Trump, but seems neither as effective as a con artist or as short-attention-span, running-off-at-the-mouth, claiming-to-save-the-world, never-admitting-he's-wrong crazy as Trump. Note I did not mention bat shit; I like the creatures. More dangerous is that lurch to the Right among the Libs. Obviously Bernardi wanted it, but didn't get it.


----------



## Dave70 (8/2/17)

yankinoz said:


> Pauline appeals to voters for much the same reasons as Trump, but seems neither as effective as a con artist or as short-attention-span, running-off-at-the-mouth, claiming-to-save-the-world, never-admitting-he's-wrong crazy as Trump. Note I did not mention bat shit; I like the creatures. More dangerous is that lurch to the Right among the Libs.* Obviously Bernardi wanted it, but didn't get it.*


He could be one to watch. His style of conservatism is far more seductive than Hanson to my eye, for those seduced by such things. Unfortunately, he's another public figure who views the world through the lens of 'religious' conservatism its seems. Not always a bad thing. Folks like that generally confirm how wildly incompatible religious ideology is in terms of public policy. And that they're nuttier than squirrel shit.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/2/17)

Got to love Religious nut jobs trying to rule in Government


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (8/2/17)

Yeh but this dick just quit the governing party...


----------



## wide eyed and legless (8/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Got to love Religious nut jobs trying to rule in Government


Could be worse, the religious nut job could be a Muslim, then ruling in government is the only option there is as they aren't that keen on democracy.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (8/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> He could be one to watch. His style of conservatism is far more seductive than Hanson to my eye, for those seduced by such things. Unfortunately, he's another public figure who views the world through the lens of 'religious' conservatism its seems. Not always a bad thing. Folks like that generally confirm how wildly incompatible religious ideology is in terms of public policy. And that they're nuttier than squirrel shit.


That's one thing (probably the only) to be said about Hanson, she doesn't use religious beliefs to justify her bigotry.


----------



## wynnum1 (8/2/17)

Does God hate Trump both the East and west coast of the US could be hit by massive tsunami or Yellowstone could erupt .


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (8/2/17)

wynnum1 said:


> Does God hate Trump both the East and west coast of the US could be hit by massive tsunami or Yellowstone could erupt .


Only on days that end in the letter y


----------



## Mattress (8/2/17)

http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/

I've been reading a bit about this mob recently.

Some very high profile, highly educated and qualified Australians looking at other options than our current version of democracy.

Could be interesting if they get a bit of momentum behind them.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/2/17)

Mattress said:


> http://www.newdemocracy.com.au/
> 
> I've been reading a bit about this mob recently.
> 
> ...


An interesting concept which has some merit. However I'm not too sure about the "random selection" of members, there would at least need to be some vetting of suitability (e.g. a working ability to understand and interpret the law, constitution etc.) and associated training. 

Ultimately a country operates (is guided) by it's constitution. This guy: http://richardpricesociety.org.uk/ was onto it some 240 years ago: 

“First, That by our country is meant, in this case, not the soil, or the spot of earth on which we happen to have been born; not the forests and fields, but that community of which we are members; or that body of companions and friends and kindred who are associated with us under the same constitution of government, protected by the same laws, and bound together by the same civil polity.”
_‘A discourse on the love of our country’ (1789)_


----------



## Brewnicorn (9/2/17)

Lotteries over elections. I wonder how that'd go. 
That said, you'd avoid the entrenched squalid behaviour of these bought out pollies we have now. Career politicians with no interest over there own.


----------



## damoninja (9/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> An interesting concept which has some merit. However I'm not too sure about the "random selection" of members, there would at least need to be some vetting of suitability (e.g. a working ability to understand and interpret the law, constitution etc.) and associated training.


Like we do (not) for jury selection?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (9/2/17)

Brewnicorn said:


> Lotteries over elections. I wonder how that'd go.


Isnt an election just a fancy lottery ?


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/2/17)

damoninja said:


> Like we do (not) for jury selection?


I've never been asked to serve Jury duty .. so perhaps I have been vetted already? 

Yes I suppose it could (may) work on a similar basis with the exception that Jury members (I assume?) are vetted on specific cases, whereas this would be much more generic. I.e. a capacity (rather than existing ability) to understand constitution and law.


----------



## Dave70 (9/2/17)

The founder seem to have a somewhat of a hard on for the original Greek democracy. Does this mean dissenters will be forced to drink hemlock?


----------



## RobW (9/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> An interesting concept which has some merit. However I'm not too sure about the "random selection" of members, there would at least need to be some vetting of suitability (e.g. a working ability to understand and interpret the law, constitution etc.) and associated training.


Isn't that what all those bureaucrats are supposed to be for?
The members could be responsible for the "big picture" and the public service develops policies and takes care of the details.

I'm pretty sure that's how it used to work before the public servants became too scared to give frank and fearless advice, or were sacked if they did.

Elected members like Hanson & Lambie etc aren't exactly renowned for their legal/technical expertise.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/2/17)

Hanson and Lambie are examples (and who was that car club guy?) of 'normal' people represented in the Senate. It is not necessarily a bad thing. 

However even they must have a capacity (rudimentary) ability to understand the constitution and law. If they don't form an understanding, then the wool can be very easily pulled over their eyes very quickly ("yes minister style") and they can propose things that are simply illegal. 

D. Trump (on a similar theme) will learn that he must work within the American constitution (and it's values such as civil liberties), a concept which I'm not sure he has fully comprehended yet. 


Edit; Or more simply, If you are in Parliament and you don't have a capacity to interpret the constitution and law, you run the risk of the Tail wagging the Dog (i.e. the Bureaucrats can tell you what you can and can't do - without you being able to reasonably question them).


----------



## RobW (9/2/17)

Ricky Muir.

Not saying they are dumb, only that they don't have the usual politician background (they all seem to be lawyers or union apparatchiks these days).

I think people with "real life" experience are greatly preferable to the ones who are raised in the bubble and don't relate to the real world.
eg: any of Joe Hockey's or Tony Abbotts dumb comments and the whole parliamentary entitlements saga. They are intelligent , tertiaty qualified and all the rest but they just don't (or won't) get it.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/2/17)

Agreed. But even so, those taking on positions in parliament must have a basic capacity to understand and work within the law. 

Trump will find this out soon enough. I imagine he will simply try and "change the laws' and Judges to suit himself .. . this is very dangerous.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (9/2/17)

RobW said:


> Isn't that what all those bureaucrats are supposed to be for?
> The members could be responsible for the "big picture" and the public service develops policies and takes care of the details.
> 
> I'm pretty sure that's how it used to work before the public servants became too scared to give frank and fearless advice, or were sacked if they did.
> ...


That is why Hanson is looking forward to more popularity she is not afraid to air her views, and will continue to gain popularity when the 2 major parties can't show any credible leadership, Labor might have a chance if they get rid of Shorten and give someone else a run. Coalition hasn't got anyone with any leadership qualities.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (9/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> I've never been asked to serve Jury duty .. so perhaps I have been vetted already?
> 
> Yes I suppose it could (may) work on a similar basis with the exception that *Jury members (I assume?) are vetted on specific cases*, whereas this would be much more generic. I.e. a capacity (rather than existing ability) to understand constitution and law.


No, they are not vetted, taken straight off the election roll and assigned randomly to cases

But

Each sides legal team can ask you to stand down without reason during selection. I know cause I have been there and got picked ( case was dismissed in the end anyway )


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/2/17)

Yes that's what I mean't . People can be 'vetted' (asked to stand down) during selection, based on the particulars of the case in hand. 

This couldn't really happen in a 'citizen senate" .. i.e. once they are 'in" ..they are in for every case during their term. So therefore there would need to be initial vetting rather than inviting people from the entire pool.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (9/2/17)

As for public servants, that is exactly what they are, servants to the public

They are not to be political, but are to run the state in the best interest of the people and to the governments instructions

Have know a few high up public servants over the years who have seen many changes in government. ( funny how they all have told be basically that the" best interests of the people " and " government instructions' most always seem to clash )


When I was a public servant on the Railways, we used to joke that with every change of Minister, we got a new letterhead. And the end of the day we just went about our daily work without really giving a shit about who was in power.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/2/17)

Ditto, but in my field (Science) whoever gets in charge sets the agenda. 

For example if the new science minister does not give a crap about the field I'm currently working in - it gets axed.

Therefore I take an interest.


----------



## klangers (9/2/17)

The aussie pollie system would benefit immeasurably by banning all political donations.

Then all of a sudden all the money used to fund shouty, dirt-flinging, alarmist adverts won't be there and we'll actually have to elect on policy. Plus remove the institutionalized corruption.


----------



## manticle (9/2/17)

OR.......

We just get my cat to do it.

Cheap, much more pleasant and at least as competent.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/2/17)

Sort of Klangers .. except if that happens it will be only rich self funded people would get a crack at it. I'm not sure that's the answer. 

Edit: Ironically I'm aware that this is already the case .. i.e. rich people are mostly in Parliament, not too many normals.


----------



## manticle (9/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Isnt an election just a fancy lottery ?


Jackpot's pretty underwhelming


----------



## Dave70 (9/2/17)

I like ideas, and clever people, but does anybody else get the vibe this is just kind of one big unworkable intellectual circle jerk? 



Nah, probably just cynical old me.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/2/17)

The wheels on the bus go around and around ... 

At the end of the day .. we all get a vote come the next election and can put them in or out. It's basic arithmetic.


----------



## Rocker1986 (9/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Yes that's what I mean't . People can be 'vetted' (asked to stand down) during selection, based on the particulars of the case in hand.


They can be asked to stand down during selection but it's at the sole discretion of the prosecution or the defence lawyers for any reason they decide. They might just not like the look of someone, or whatever. It has nothing to do with the particulars of the case, and the lawyers know nothing about the potential jurors. It's not really a process of deciding whether someone knows enough about it to be qualified to serve on the jury. I've been called up twice; the first time I just went home on the first day and didn't have to go back again for the rest of the two weeks. The second time I ended up on a jury, and a few people were asked to stand down by both sides for reasons unknown. They just looked like perfectly normal everyday people like everyone else in the group.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (9/2/17)

I have been called up for jury duty but got stood down, and I would have been a crap juror, I was waiting for a case of mine to be heard and I sat in on the case before mine regarding a Peeping Tom and after hearing the evidence my opinion was a not guilty verdict until the judge read out all the accused previous convictions for being a Peeping Tom my opinion went down the gurgler.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (9/2/17)

Rocker1986 said:


> They can be asked to stand down during selection but it's at the sole discretion of the prosecution or the defence lawyers for any reason they decide. They might just not like the look of someone, or whatever. It has nothing to do with the particulars of the case, and the lawyers know nothing about the potential jurors. It's not really a process of deciding whether someone knows enough about it to be qualified to serve on the jury. I've been called up twice; the first time I just went home on the first day and didn't have to go back again for the rest of the two weeks. The second time I ended up on a jury, and a few people were asked to stand down by both sides for reasons unknown. They just looked like perfectly normal everyday people like everyone else in the group.


Indeed. Not so much as whether the know enough about it (legally speaking) but maybe whether they have been influenced about what they think they know about it. 

E.g. a case about reckless driving, and one of the potential Jurors is wearing a "hot rods, summernats and burnouts t-shirt".


----------



## manticle (9/2/17)

If I ever get called up for jury duty, I'll make sure I wear my 'you ******* people make me sick' t-shirt.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (9/2/17)

My brother received his call up letter for Jury Duty during the Joh Bjelke Peterson Government days. He sent them back a ten page letter declining the invitation detailing his views on the corruptness of the Government and Police Force. They have left him alone ever since.


----------



## Dave70 (9/2/17)

I've sat twice. 
Its _not_ like A Few Good Men.


----------



## Zorco (9/2/17)

Once for me. It's not like Star Trek.


----------



## Rocker1986 (9/2/17)

I wore a Motley Crue t-shirt and they let me on. :lol: The case I was on involved an attempted car theft or some shit.. we found him guilty and a few of us hung around afterwards for the sentencing. Turned out he had a long past of these types of offences.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (9/2/17)

Ironically....

I was at the pub doing the meat rafffles tonight, and my next door neighbor/landlord and his son, 21 cruised in.

Young Jordy had been called up for this morning and got selected for a murder trial that will last at least 3-4 weeks....( yep, good old G-Town's court has the Supreme court sit rather often )

He rollled up to the pub in his work gear, just as he rolled up to court for selection. Just as he went to work all week working on things like cane harvesters, tractors, cars...etc..

He thought that they would let him go...


He already thinks its all a bit slow......


----------



## wide eyed and legless (10/2/17)

Good on you Jacqui Lambie for introducing a burqa ban bill, could never imagine Malcolm doing it.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

Why is it a good thing ?


----------



## wide eyed and legless (10/2/17)

Another shackle to be cast off from a man made religion which denigrates women along with female circumcision and marrying 12 year old girls.,


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

I don't think banning clothing is the best way to bring down organised religion.

It will fail because the idea is as dumb as she is.


----------



## SBOB (10/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> Good on you Jacqui Lambie for introducing a burqa ban bill, could never imagine Malcolm doing it.


not that he hasnt done stupid stuff.... but most likely because this idea is stupid

If we are happy to become a country that suppresses the freedom to express individuals religious beliefs, then what other stuff are we also going to be happy to give up?

whats next? Cory Bernadi for prime minister?


----------



## SBOB (10/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> Another shackle to be cast off from a man made religion which denigrates women along with female circumcision and marrying 12 year old girls.,


aren't all religions man made?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

SBOB said:


> aren't all religions man made?


Correct


----------



## wide eyed and legless (10/2/17)

They are all man made made religions but they don't all treat women as second class citizens, why is it a stupid idea? Germany let the marriage of children go ahead through PC and the following of Sharia law, but have banned the burqa how stupid is that.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (10/2/17)

SBOB said:


> whats next? Cory Bernadi for prime minister?


You've just sent my fog and cat into mad panic...

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/controversy-over-cory-bernardi-bestiality-comments/4269604


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> They are all man made made religions but they don't all treat women as second class citizens, why is it a stupid idea? Germany let the marriage of children go ahead through PC and the following of Sharia law, but have banned the burqa how stupid is that.


Why is it stupid? Because you're banning a piece of clothing (mostly based on the idea that if you can't see their face, they're more likely to kill you).

It's hardly about women's lib.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (10/2/17)

Banning a piece of clothing which the men make them wear, can't see the harm in that, they can wear a hijab, no one is banning that.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

Interesting now The Don has picked a fight with the Supreme Court...

Of course all he has to say is " Security of America...it threatens the security of America..."

Fun times


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> Banning a piece of clothing which the men make them wear, can't see the harm in that, they can wear a hijab, no one is banning that.



Some women ( a fair amount ) choose to wear it, So its not like it is forced upon them as you wish us to believe


----------



## wide eyed and legless (10/2/17)

How many choose to wear it ? I suppose they would all like to be married by the age of 12 and circumcised and receive no inheritance and be left destitute when their husbands die


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

Just where do you get your info from WEAL....Train drivers ?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> How many choose to wear it ? I suppose they would all like to be married by the age of 12 and circumcised and receive no inheritance and be left destitute when their husbands die


Put the crack pipe down WEAL...your starting to sound a bit silly


----------



## wide eyed and legless (10/2/17)

I take it you have never visited any Muslim countries?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

No, but it is still an absurd statemant you made


----------



## wide eyed and legless (10/2/17)

Why?


----------



## SBOB (10/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> I take it you have never visited any Muslim countries?


which ones in particular?

Maldives?
Morocco?
Turkey?
Indonesia?
Egypt?

Or you just mean those scary middle-eastern ones right?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

Dont try and turn it around SBOB

WEAL is trying to convince us that all Muslim women are whatever it is that WEALthinks


----------



## wide eyed and legless (10/2/17)

Just the close one will do Indonesia, Malaysia and Maldives I am still waiting for some one to tell me why it is stupid or is that the best argument anyone has?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

Why is what stupid ?


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

It's stupid because, apart from anything else, it won't achieve its intended purpose.

About as logical as banning backwards caps to crack down on graffiti.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

Its not only Muslim men.....The Christians are pretty good at at....but Christians are good ..right...?


----------



## SBOB (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> It's stupid because, apart from anything else, it won't achieve its intended purpose.
> 
> About as logical as banning backwards caps to crack down on graffiti.


or double denim to crack down on country music...


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

Leave Townes van Zandt alone.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

Is this type of gender specific ethical restriction called a "namus"?
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Namus

There is a fine line between religious freedom and religious pressure. If a clothing 'namus' restricts a woman from interaction with other people in society (lets face it - most communication is via body language) then that's not a good thing in my opinion.

If a woman 'chooses' to wear it then does she not choose to limit her ability to communicate?


----------



## wide eyed and legless (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> It's stupid because, apart from anything else, it won't achieve its intended purpose.


And why will it not achieve its intended purpose, I suppose all the other countries which have banned it, it has just been a complete waste of time, the women of a Muslim faith are often not allowed an education and when they do get an education and speak out they are promptly got rid of.
Anything that helps release the women from their shackles is worthwhile and not stupid as for the nun they wear their garb by choice not because they were made to.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (10/2/17)

Or banning Christian Brothers to abolish paedophilia. Hang on a minute.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

All choices are fraught with possible hypocrisy and contradiction.

The point is that it's a choice, willingly made (which being told 'no' definitely isn't).

I'll just suggest once more though that the motivation is nothing to do with women's emancipation. Disingenuous to suggest it is, really.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> And why will it not achieve its intended purpose, I suppose all the other countries which have banned it, it has just been a complete waste of time, the women of a Muslim faith are often not allowed an education and when they do get an education and speak out they are promptly got rid of.
> Anything that helps release the women from their shackles is worthwhile and not stupid as for the nun they wear their garb by choice not because they were made to.


Its intended purpose is to make us safer from terrorism. Explain to me how it will.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> Anything that helps release the women from their shackles is worthwhile and not stupid as for the nun they wear* their garb by choice not because they were made t*o.


Under servitude to a male run regeime


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> Or banning Christian Brothers to abolish paedophilia. Hang on a minute.


Pfffft


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> Its intended purpose is to make us safer from terrorism. Explain to me how it will.


Cause we will be able to see that they are terrorists, its really very simple(istic)


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

If a woman chooses to limit her ability to communicate with 50% of society, how is it that society is able to include her? More likely she will be tolerated but not fully included?


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

Facial expressions and body movement is a large part of communication.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

I dont want to communicate with 50% of the population.... And I find that a good thing, and I still feel included


----------



## wide eyed and legless (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> I'll just suggest once more though that the motivation is nothing to do with women's emancipation. Disingenuous to suggest it is, really.


There will be plenty of women out there who will disagree with that statement, do you know that it is the freedom of expression by the woman to wear those garbs or is it freedom of expression by the men?


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (10/2/17)

I find Tradie's backcrack far more offensive than any head dress.


----------



## abyss (10/2/17)

I reckon kids should not be taught to not believe in Santa Clause and the world would be a better place.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

abyss said:


> I reckon kids should not be taught to not believe in Santa Clause and the world would be a better place.




...back of there buddy.... I like getting drunk at Christmas....do not take that away from me


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> There will be plenty of women out there who will disagree with that statement, do you know that it is the freedom of expression by the woman to wear those garbs or is it freedom of expression by the men?


If you research, you'll find there are plenty of well educated muslim women who don the veil for very specific reasons.

Not my cup of tea- I struggle to understand why any educated person chooses to believe in sky fairies but so be it. They can. They can also wear hoods, veils or cover themselves in tatts.

I'm not saying there isn't an argument from a feminist standpoint against hijab/burqua/niquab (and some for) but my point is that that has nothing whatsoever to do with Lambie's quite open motivation. Hence if the level of terrorist threat drops below probable, she's happy for them to go back to being sheet wearing male slaves with less rights than a teacup.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I dont want to communicate with 50% of the population.... And I find that a good thing, and I still feel included


Yes but people don't feel afraid (I assume)? to try and communicate with you. 

It's like wearing a piss off and don't talk to me t-shirt. We'll fair enough, don't feel bad if I ignore you then...


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

...I didnt realise i was supposed to wear something h34r:


----------



## wide eyed and legless (10/2/17)

But is it really aimed at terrorists, has there ever been any terrorist activity from wearing the Burqa?It is airports and the ACT that the ban is aimed at, fair enough, but she wants anyone who forces a woman or a child wear a burqa to be fined and imprisoned, that would lead me believe that it is about taking control away from the man.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

People can worship whatever they like,.. Golden calf, man with beard, elephant with many trunks... whatever floats your boat.

But to effectively say as a group " we choose to wear this that makes it nigh on impossible to communicate with 50% of society"... I'm not sure that's in the spirit of a happy society.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (10/2/17)

50% of society??? Which bum are you pulling these statistics from?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> But is it really aimed at terrorists, has there ever been any terrorist activity from wearing the Burqa?It is airports and the ACT that the ban is aimed at, fair enough, but she wants anyone who forces a woman or a child wear a make-up and earings to be fined and imprisoned, that would lead me believe that it is about taking control away from the man.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> 50% of society??? Which bum are you pulling these statistics from?


I miss Bum


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> But is it really aimed at terrorists, has there ever been any terrorist activity from wearing the Burqa?It is airports and the ACT that the ban is aimed at, fair enough, but she wants anyone who forces a woman or a child wear a burqa to be fined and imprisoned, that would lead me believe that it is about taking control away from the man.


And that's why Bernardi has lent his support? Because he's a stalwart suffragette?

There's plenty to be discussed about human rights including religious freedoms and I'm all for that. I don't see this push as adding much, if anything to that discussion.

Plus she's from Launceston. Full muslim regalia is not something you see a lot of there. Tas is very white (some parts slowly changing a bit, particularly in my area which is nice). Still not many/any full face coverings.

Here's another take : banning full face covering in public forces those women to stay home, inside.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> 50% of society??? Which bum are you pulling these statistics from?


Men.

Men make roughly 50% of society don't they?


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (10/2/17)

Yes but plenty of blokes that I know are not afraid to speak to women who wear traditional head dress mate!


----------



## abyss (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Men.
> Men make roughly 50% of society don't they?


I wonder what the % of Men who believe in Santa is ?


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> Yes but plenty of blokes that I know are not afraid to speak to women who wear traditional head dress mate!


Excellent. But it's not exactly good or welcoming communication when you can't see the other persons face and they are not allowed out of the house without a male escort.


----------



## abyss (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Excellent. But it's not exactly good or welcoming communication when you can't see the other persons face and they are not allowed out of the house without a male escort.


Are there any jobs going as a Male Escort for these times in need as I have a mate looking for work.


----------



## SBOB (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Excellent. But it's not exactly good or welcoming communication when you can't see the other persons face .


you mean like this conversation on the internet?
or when you're on the phone with someone..


it's fine if you want to claim you find it 'confronting' or 'unwelcoming' when communicating with someone wearing a full face burqa, but don't lump the rest of the population in with yourself


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (10/2/17)

I see plenty of muslim women in Brissie out on their own or just with other women. Not a male escort within Cooee.


----------



## Mattress (10/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> Another shackle to be cast off from a man made religion which denigrates women along with female circumcision and marrying 12 year old girls.,


You're talking about the Christian religion aren't you?



1 Timothy 2:11-12 - A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
1 Corinthians 14:33 - 35 - Women should remain silent in the churches. They are not allowed to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they want to inquire about something, they should ask their own husbands at home; for it is disgraceful for a woman to speak in the church.

Ephesians 5:22 - 23 -  Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Excellent. But it's not exactly good or welcoming communication when you can't see the other persons face and they are not allowed out of the house without a male escort.


Regardless of how you feel about the communicative nature of someone else's clothes, do you think you have the right to tell them they're not allowed to wear it?


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

...them bloody Christians again...fuckers


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

That's why there's a royal commission....


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

Mattress said:


> You're talking about the Christian religion aren't you?
> 
> 
> 1 Timothy 2:11-12 - A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to assume authority over a man; she must be quiet.
> ...


MMMAAATEEE...you do know that the Bible and its friend the Quran are a translation of a bunch of stories over a few hundred years passed down via word of mouth from several different area's..


Its almost like The Daily Telegraph for truth & honesty


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> Regardless of how you feel about the communicative nature of someone else's clothes, do you think you havd the right to tell them they're not allowed to wear it?


Why 'regardless"? Am I not allowed to feel more comfortable if I can see someone's face when I'm talking to them on the street?


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

SBOB said:


> you mean like this conversation on the internet?
> or when you're on the phone with someone..
> 
> 
> it's fine if you want to claim you find it 'confronting' or 'unwelcoming' when communicating with someone wearing a full face burqa, but don't lump the rest of the population in with yourself


I am not trying to tell anyone else how to feel.

It is a scientifically proven phenomena that much communication occurs through seeing a persons face and gauging their body movements. It's fact not personal opinion.


----------



## SBOB (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Why 'regardless"? Am I not allowed to feel more comfortable if I can see someone's face when I'm talking to them on the street?


yes, but you shouldnt be able to force them to change their clothing based on your 'feelings'


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Why 'regardless"? Am I not allowed to feel more comfortable if I can see someone's face when I'm talking to them on the street?


So 'allowed' you can force them not to wear an item of clothing?

Could I force the bogan arsehole on the Glenorchy bus not to talk about how much he wants to shoot every ****? He wasn't very welcoming or friendly.

How you feel (or would like to feel) should not be defined by law.

And you didn't answer my question anyway.


----------



## Dave70 (10/2/17)

The burqa / niqab are a wonderful reminders of how 'modestly' can be interpreted by playful scamps like the Taliban and their ilk to mean 'cover yourself from head your head from toe woman because we are a fanatical bunch of acutely sexually repressed violent fucktards likely to gang rape you, then level charges of dishonoring your family in a sharia court, then beat you, then stone you to death'. 
In the west, where a womans right _not _to wear it if they choose is protected by the law of the land, its a symbol of religious piety, devotion and self expression. So have at it if you must.

But you cant have it both ways (gods law, _actual _law) If you cant wear a full face helmet, you cant wear a niqab, for obvious reasons, so roll it back where necessary. Hurt feelings be fucked. Be a sport about it girls.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (10/2/17)

Yeah Its dumb ozzies fault they cant strike up a conversation with someone in a Burqa. 

I can relate to the _cloaking your identity_ point of view. Also adding. We have laws set here and we all abide them. Anyone here expect to go out in public in a cloak? balaclava? Big brother watching CCTV cameras. Cant walk into a bank wearing a helmet. yada yada..
No matter how high your personal evolved intelligence goes look at the over all picture of the population. Its not normal here. Or do we convert? Submit? Hell no.
I'll speak of a overall open democratic society in oz and beyond our nation point of view, that the Burqa is offensive as in hiding who you are. Face to face! were did that go?
There it is and you know how being offended really pulls weight these days. The battle of their religion being considered above our laws. Or a religion that holds the highest record in our modern days of radicalism, bending the rules of this democracy? Be bloody carefull. 
Sorry, that's a downer note please make good jokes now.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

SBOB said:


> yes, but you shouldnt be able to force them to change their clothing based on your 'feelings'


I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.

What I am stating is that it does not make me feel welcome or comfortable conversing in person with someone's face I can't see. It's a scientific fact that much communication occurs through facial expressions and /or body movements.

Are you trying to force me as to what makes me feel comfortable? And if it doesn't then my feelings are wrong?


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

Dave - we're not living in Afghanistan. Taliban don't have a heap of say here.

As a libertarian , wouldn't you defend the right of an eccentric bloke to wear a balaclava in the noon sun if he desires?

It's carrying a sawn-off and demanding money that's the sticking point. Ban that.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> But you cant have it both ways (gods law, _actual _law) If you* cant wear a full face helmet*, you cant wear a niqab, for obvious reasons, so roll it back where necessary. Hurt feelings be fucked. Be a sport about it girls.


That law really ruined my career as a bank robber


----------



## Danscraftbeer (10/2/17)

Point is your not allowed to wear it!


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

In a bank.

You are allowed to wear it in public in most instances.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> As a libertarian , wouldn't you defend the right of an eccentric bloke to wear a balaclava in...


It's a civil liberty to be able to walk down the street and have a talk with someone face to face.

If someone wants (or is coerced) to waive that civil liberty it is a backward step for society.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

If you really think you have a leg to stand on with that argument, I wish you luck.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

Danscraftbeer said:


> Point is your not allowed to wear it!


..well....by law, when on the the road you have to..

There are just way to many laws



manticle said:


> In a bank.
> 
> You are allowed to wear it in public in most instances.


Only if you want to look like a power ranger


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

Thing is, as far as I can work out, there are company policies that request removal if you want to be served.

Different to laws, yes?

Happy to be wrong if I've missed something


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> It's a civil liberty to be able to walk down the street and have a talk with someone face to face.


No it isnt, its not even a right, the fact that you can does not make it a right. If I dont want to talk with someone face to face down the street then there is **** all you can do about it


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> Thing is, as far as I can work out, there are *company policies that request removal if you want to be served.*


Mostly those that have lots of money on the premises....and those that take passport photo.s


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> If you really think you have a leg to stand on with that argument, I wish you luck.


Thanks.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

Sorry mate - I really want to discuss points and counterpoints and avoid hyperbole or playing man, not ball but your argument is so weak, I'm not sure where to go.

Feeling comfortable having a conversation with stranger is not a civil right under any definition.

In regards to having a conversation (whether comfortable or not) - well under current laws you can. And you can do it wearing a veil.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (10/2/17)

Sometomes I deliberately choose not to make eye contact with others when walking down the street. Does this mean that there is a percentage of a chance that I could be arrested?


----------



## Danscraftbeer (10/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> No it isnt, its not even a right. If I dont want to talk with someone face to face down the street then there is **** all you can do about it


At least you can do it face to face. Body language thing again its so useful and it really does work without saying any words.
Its what I know. How the fark can you read a person under a cloak?


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

I can read you under your avatar as much as is required for conversation here.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> I'm not forcing anyone to do anything.
> What I am stating is that it does not make me feel welcome or comfortable conversing in person with someone's face I can't see. It's a scientific fact that much communication occurs through facial expressions and /or body movements.
> Are you trying to force me as to what makes me feel comfortable? And if it doesn't then my feelings are wrong?


Your feelings and opinions are yours but they still may be ill informed or based on falsehoods.

However the initial discussion was about proposed legislation change, rather than what people like/dislike.

Apples and oranges.


----------



## Dave70 (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> Dave - we're not living in Afghanistan. Taliban don't have a heap of say here.
> 
> As a libertarian , wouldn't you defend the right of an eccentric bloke to wear a balaclava in the noon sun if he desires?
> 
> It's carrying a sawn-off and demanding money that's the sticking point. Ban that.


The Taliban thing was more a segue. Or allegory. Or something.
By all means, wear a balaclava 24/7, I'll defend his right to do that, as I am defending the right of a women to dress somewhat like ninjutsu. Any eccentricity is fine with me - so long as it's bent has provision to accommodate what the law demands, and not transcend it. 
Not saying all balaclava / burqu enthusiasts are habitual lawbreakers, but its an important point.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

I agree.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (10/2/17)

One man wearing a Balaclava.
or
Thousands?


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

Hundreds of thousands.

Wot?


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> Sorry mate - I really want to discuss points and counterpoints and avoid hyperbole or playing man, not ball but your argument is so weak, I'm not sure where to go.
> Feeling comfortable having a conversation with stranger is not a civil right under any definition.
> In regards to having a conversation (whether comfortable or not) - well under current laws you can. And you can do it wearing a veil.[/
> 
> If you were formally enslaved I'd say walking down the street and having a free conversation with whoever you choose without masking your identity is definitely a civil liberty.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> Your feelings and opions are yours but they still may be ill informed or based on falsehoods.
> Apples and oranges.


Is it a falsehood that communication is far better when you can see the person you are talking to?


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

What?

Did you just escape from Africa in 1748?

If you just escaped from Iran or Iraq or Syria and were accepted in a new society, it's a civil liberty to be able to walk down the street, wearing your culturally relevant garments.

Maybe you need to try talking to someone with a veil. I have. It's not so bad.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

Slavery occurs in 2017, in some places.

Don't take for granted your civil liberties.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Is it a falsehood that communication is far better when you can see the person you are talking to?


Like on the phone or in an email?

Or in a culture that isn't yours?


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Slavery occurs in 2017, in some places.
> Don't take for granted your civil liberties.


Um.. I know. Not sure that adds much to your right to be comfy talking to strangers.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

So you have changed your mind what a civil liberty is then?

And you acknowledge the actions of good men and women who stood up for them to be upheld?


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> Like on the phone or in an email?
> Or in a culture that isn't yours?


No.

Face to face. Person to person. Old school.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

Not sure when I changed my mind.

Pretty sure nothing I've written suggested that though.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> No.
> Face to face. Person to person. Old school.


I think you missed my point. There are numerous examples where facial recognition/visualisation is irrelevant to good communication.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

There are numerous examples where face recognition is key to good communication.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

And?

The question you've yet to answer is does that give you the right to tell someone what they can or can't wear under national law?


----------



## Dave70 (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Is it a falsehood that communication is far better when you can see the person you are talking to?


I think I get where you're coming from, in a round about way. 

Here is the truly heroic Benazir Bhutto. Twice prime minister of muslim majority Pakistan, until assassinated by al queda cowards. 
Would she have been such an effective communicator from behind a burka? Its doubtful. And theres not one prominent muslim woman leader who wears one. Not one.


----------



## SBOB (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> If you were formally enslaved I'd say walking down the street and having a free conversation with whoever you choose without masking your identity is definitely a civil liberty.


I went checking, but doesnt seem 'walking down the street having a conversation with whoever you choose' is even on the list...
http://www.cla.asn.au/News/cla-policies/

(and thats from some nutters  )


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> I think I get where you're coming from, in a round about way.
> 
> Here is the truly heroic Benazir Bhutto. Twice prime minister of muslim majority Pakistan, until assassinated by al queda cowards.
> Would she have been such an effective communicator from behind a burka? Its doubtful. And theres not one prominent muslim woman leader who wears one. Not one.


And she chose not to rather than being forced not to, yes?


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

SBOB said:


> I went checking, but doesnt seem 'walking down the street having a conversation with whoever you choose' is even on the list...
> http://www.cla.asn.au/News/cla-policies/
> (and thats from some nutters  )


It's on my list.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

On my list is the right not to have to listen to 7HO fm on the bus.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

Or anywhere else


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> And?
> The question you've yet to answer is does that give you the right to tell someone what they can or can't wear under national law?


Actually I did answer it.

I put it to you that the ability to walk down the street without the need to cover your face or identity is a civil liberty.

Those that wish to waive that liberty may do so, at their own discretion.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

And they do.
Question was about law to remove part 2.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

....and so is the ability to walk down the street with the need to cover your face or identity is a civil liberty.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (10/2/17)

Ah the teething of democracy. Its kind of turmoil, sometimes painful but not too bad in the long run and should be the long runner. Somehow.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

The word you use "need" is incompatible with your statement.

In a free society you freely choose to take or waive your liberty.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

The liberty is being free of the need to do something. Unless you want to of course, upon which you are waiving that liberty.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

Some times you may need to cover yourself up....or even want to


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

If you choose to waive a freedom it's your choice. 

But I think as a society it's better to be free.


----------



## Dave70 (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> And she chose not to rather than being forced not to, yes?


Even if she was, she likely would have told em to go **** themselves, politely. I suppose she could have a some gesture of solidarity, its not actually _law _to wear it anywhere that I know of, other than theoretically controlled provincial shitholes, but the point I was making is covering your face certainly inhibits communication. 
Though there always exceptions to the rule.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (10/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> If you choose to waive a freedom it's your choice.
> 
> But I think as a society it's better to be free.


How is it waiving freedom...that just doesnt make sense.... you should be free to walk around fully covered up......some people have to, some want to....some dont give a shit


----------



## good4whatAlesU (10/2/17)

That is not a freedom. It's a restraint (by choice).

Nighty night gentlemen. Enjoy your civil liberties tomorrow. Or choose not to take them. Up to you.


----------



## Bridges (10/2/17)

A grown woman wearing what she chooses to wear in public, who is happy and comfortable going about her business, speaking to whoever she wants. Doesn't shit me nearly as much as these cock heads.


----------



## Dave70 (10/2/17)

Lets put them in a huge cage with this lot, lock the doors and and dont let them out until they come to an amicable agreement.


----------



## manticle (10/2/17)

I agree (again)


----------



## Brewnicorn (10/2/17)

manticle said:


> Sorry mate - I really want to discuss points and counterpoints and avoid hyperbole or playing man, not ball but your argument is so weak, I'm not sure where to go.
> 
> Feeling comfortable having a conversation with stranger is not a civil right under any definition.
> 
> In regards to having a conversation (whether comfortable or not) - well under current laws you can. And you can do it wearing a veil.


Exactly. Point well made Manticle. 
There's no right that anyone has to prevail over another person for their own comfort. 
This fictional ideal where a utopia might prevail but for the garment is utter shit. Visiting Muslim countries tells you that's not the norm there. It's not the norm here. Name one country where you think it's the case and meet your counter point. It's not forced on anyone but a minority by a small number of assholes. Separate the asshole from the religion as you would the balaclava wearer from his when he robs a bank. 
Fundamentalist ideology is not the same as religion. Read the writings of the Prophet Mohammed and it should tell you something about respect for women that's pretty ******* absent in most western societies. That any religion's teachings have been bastardised and misinterpreted and pushed sideways for the gain of a minority or (surprise) a hierarchy in a religion is not new. It's not unique to Muslim culture either. 
Now I've said a bit there but if anyone wants to take up the challenge do some reading through Aust National Uni. http://cais.anu.edu.au 
Do it. Don't follow the herd. Learn the great stuff, the ugly stuff and the challenges. Plenty of bigger shit to worry about.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/2/17)

Religious documents are written by men. You have to sort the wheat from the chaff.

If you live in a lucky country like Australia, you are spoiled by the choice whether to take up civil liberties or not. The choice in itself is not a civil liberty, but it is a freedom to be able to choose.

Personally, I like being able walk down the street without hiding my identity and communicate with someone. I choose to take up this civil liberty. Some others waive it. That is their choice.


----------



## goomboogo (11/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> The liberty is being free of the need to do something. Unless you want to of course, upon which you are waiving that liberty.


Can you expand on this idea that exercising choice is an abandonment of liberty. I presume you are referring to liberty in the political sense rather than liberty through the prism of philosophy.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/2/17)

Okay.

Take someone who chooses to live in a brick cell in their back yard, locked except on the occasion that someone uses them as a sex slave. The person in question is making this choice.

Is this persons 'choice' a civil liberty? Or is their choice the 'waiving" of an available civil liberty. I.e. to be free.


----------



## goomboogo (11/2/17)

If a person is freely making that choice then they are not a slave. In the example you give, the person is not waiving their civil liberty. This person's right to be subjected to the established laws of the community are not being infringed by virtue of their choice.

The only way your example would be valid was if the person in question was forced by another person or entity such as a government to live in the brick cell in the back yard. This would then be an attack on the person's civil liberty.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/2/17)

I disagree. 

By choice people, through religion or choice can deny themselves access to certain civil liberties available to them. Not all civil liberties are taken up by everyone, but in a great country like Australia, they are available to you.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> That is not a freedom. It's a restraint (by choice).
> 
> Nighty night gentlemen. Enjoy your civil liberties tomorrow. Or choose not to take them. Up to you.


How is it a restraint if you choose to.( have you been reading WEAL's manual on unions & train driving ? )

Just because you dont like the idea of someone covering themselves , does t not mean that person has dropped any rights or civil liberties


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> I disagree.
> 
> *By choice people*, through religion or choice can deny themselves access to certain civil liberties available to them. N*ot all civil liberties are taken up by everyone*, but in a great country like Australia, they are available to you.


The choose to. Which part of " They choose to" .is the problem for you. Sure, they may be available, but there is no law that says you must follow them.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/2/17)

What people choose or don't choose to do within the law is up to them.

People can choose to access a civil liberty available to them or they can choose not to.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> Lets put them in a huge cage with this lot, lock the doors and and dont let them out until they come to an amicable agreement.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> What people choose or don't choose to do within the law is up to them.
> 
> People can choose to access a civil liberty available to them or they can choose not to.


Choosing ( or wanting ) to be covered up is a civil liberty. Its that simple


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/2/17)

Being able to walk down the street freely showing your face and identify is a civil liberty. Which under Australian law can be waived by choice.

Personally I feel it better if more people avail themselves of the liberty than not.


----------



## manticle (11/2/17)

We all know how you feel. You've made it abundantly clear.
As an unmuddied lake.
Clear as an azure sky on a summer's day.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Being able to walk down the street freely showing your face and identify is a civil liberty. Which under Australian law can be waived by choice.
> 
> Personally I feel it better if more people avail themselves of the liberty than not.


 Which liberty ?

The liberty to be able to walk down the street fully covered

or

The liberty to be able to walk down the street uncovered


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/2/17)

Restrictions placed upon you (indeed even if chosen) are not a societal liberty. 

As I have stated, it is a restriction in communication to fully cover your face and body. That is a waiver of liberty, made by choice. Almost exclusively by women.


----------



## manticle (11/2/17)

By wearing clothing, are we waiving our civil liberty to walk, tackle unfettered, through the main streets.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Restrictions placed upon you (indeed even if chosen) are not a societal liberty.
> 
> As I have stated, *it is a restriction in communication to fully cover your face and bod*y. That is a waiver of liberty, made by choice. Almost exclusively by women.


How is it a restriction in community...

What if everyone in the community where fully covered ?


You still have not explained why walking down the street fully covered is

A). waiving of your civile liberties

B.) restrictive


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/2/17)

No because our identity and ability to communicate are not hampered.

Over and out guys. Life to live, liberties to enjoy.

Have a great day.


----------



## manticle (11/2/17)

I communicate tacklewise


----------



## goomboogo (11/2/17)

manticle said:


> I communicate tacklewise


I remember the days of porkspin. Now that was one unambiguous form of commnication.


----------



## goomboogo (11/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> No because our identity and ability to communicate are not hampered.
> 
> Over and out guys. Life to live, liberties to enjoy.
> 
> Have a great day.


I would guess that if some bloke walked up to me on the street, waiving his tackle around, it would hamper effective communication. It may be different for you but I would probably find it a little distracting.

I'm interested to know how you define civil liberties because this seems to be the source of the confusion within this discussion.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/2/17)

goomboogo said:


> I remember the days of porkspin. Now that was one unambiguous form of commnication.


Wonder if there is a Muslim version...

You spin me right round baby right roundlike a record spinning right round

You can get it Here --> Click here...I dare you


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/2/17)

goomboogo said:


> I would guess that if some bloke walked up to me on the street, waiving his tackle around, it would hamper effective communication. It may be different for you but I would probably find it a little distracting.
> 
> *I'm interested to know how you define civil liberties* because this seems to be the source of the confusion within this discussion.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_liberties


Australia[SIZE=small][edit][/SIZE]
Although Australia does not have an enshrined Bill of Rights or similar binding legal document, civil liberties are assumed as protected through a series of rules and conventions. Australia was a key player and signatory to the UN Universal Declaration on Human Rights (1948)
The Constitution of Australia (1900) does offer very limited protection of rights:

the right to freedom of religion and;
the right to freedom from discrimination based on out-of-state residence (historical prejudice based upon residence within one state affecting treatment within another)
Certain High Court interpretations of the Constitution have allowed for implied rights such as freedom of speech and the right to vote to be established, however others such as freedom of assembly and freedom of association are yet to be identified.
*Refugee Issues*
Within the past decade Australia has experienced increasing contention regarding its treatment of those seeking asylum. Although Australia is a signatory to the UN Refugee Convention (1951), successive governments have demonstrated an increasing tightening of borders; particularly against those who seek passage via small water vessels.
The Abbott Government (2013) like its predecessors (the Gillard and Howard Governments) has encountered particular difficulty curbing asylum seekers via sea, increasingly identified as "illegal immigration". The recent involvement of the Australian Navy in refugee rescue operations has many human rights groups such as Amnesty International concerned over the "militarisation" of treatment of refugees. The current "turn-back" policy is particularly divisive, as it involves placing refugees in government lifeboats and turning them towards Indonesia. Despite opposition however, the Abbott government's response has so far seen a reduction in the amount of potential refugees undertaking the hazardous cross to Australia, which is argued by the government as an indicator for its policy success.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (11/2/17)

Not being religious myself I was under the belief that religion comes from the soul not the clothes that is worn, does it make a woman less religious by not wearing what her partner forces her to wear.
Remember those women who wear the full monty have come from countries where the women are discriminated against in the worst possible way, how many murders by family members have been committed in those western countries where the children of immigrants or refugees have seen the freedom the women have in those countries and want the same freedom, to marry some one who they want to marry, not who their father wants them to marry.
It is all about control by the man, if what Lambie has put forward will go some way to give a woman respect and freedom then I am for it


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (11/2/17)

Then as Manticle has already said why is the legislation only to be activated if the threat of terror level is raised to "probable"? It is a simplistic piece of dog whistling being introduced by a yokel and thus far supported by the likes of One Nation and Bernadi. Women's Rights my arse.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (11/2/17)

**** all to do with terror, as mentioned previously why introduce 'Anyone forcing a woman or child to wear a burqa will be imprisoned and fined, it is aimed to give the women freedom of choice.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (11/2/17)

Everything to do with fear of terror threats the way I read it:

http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/jacqui-lambie-proposes-full-face-coverings-ban-if-terror-threat-raised/news-story/3f86708b2ee6161e13140cb5b3825edd


----------



## manticle (11/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> **** all to do with terror, as mentioned previously why introduce 'Anyone forcing a woman or child to wear a burqa will be imprisoned and fined, it is aimed to give the women freedom of choice.


Sweetener.

It's directly related to the official terror threat level. You do know that, don't you? If the threat falls below probable, the face covering ban also is removed.

Why do you think Bernardi would support anything to do with women's freedom?

And how on earth do you prove parents force kids to wear clothing of a particular type? I wasn't given much of a choice in my garments when I was a youngster.


----------



## manticle (11/2/17)

How do you promote freedom of choice by banning something anyway?


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/2/17)

Had a great day out.

... mmm I'll have a go. How about;

"The equal right for all citizens * to enjoy the freedoms** of society, to choose a government for ourselves made of elected representatives, to form a constitution and to live peacefully***"

*regardless of gender, race or peaceful religion".
**no class divisions, free speech (including the freedom of unimpeded public communication), access to public places and amenities, access to education, access to uncensored information and a free media, ability to purchase and own land and access employment opportunities...."

***within the laws fitting within our constitution and agreed upon by our elected parliament"


----------



## wide eyed and legless (11/2/17)

Not banned, freedom of choice, the women must be given freedom of choice. Don't you understand women have to be shown respect, not told to wear what the men want them to wear?


----------



## manticle (11/2/17)

@GFWAU: Why do you keep banging on about civil liberties (as if wearing a piece of cloth negates anything from your list).

Senator Lambie wants to introduce legislation that prevents any person wearing any item of clothing that covers their face in a public place IF/WHEN the official terror threat is probable or higher (which it currently is). If that threat drops, the ban is no longer in place and people can wear whatever shit they want, wherever they want.


----------



## manticle (11/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> Not banned, freedom of choice, the women must be given freedom of choice. Don't you understand women have to be shown respect, not told to wear what the men want them to wear?


Of course I do but that's not the point of the legislation. And it's a ban so freedom of choice is the very opposite.

All that will happen is that those women who are under the thumb of a dictatorial male partner will be forbidden to leave the house.

Less freedom, not more.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/2/17)

manticle said:


> @GFWAU: Why do you keep banging on about civil liberties (as if wearing a piece of cloth negates anything from your list).
> Senator Lambie wants to introduce legislation that prevents any person wearing any item of clothing that covers their face in a public place IF/WHEN the off official terror threat is probable or higher (which it currently is). If that threat drops, the threat is no longer in place and people can wear whatever shit they want, wherever they want.


Wearing a face covering garment impedes on the freedom of unimpeded communication. If some people (women) through religion choose to waive that freedom it is their right.

Just for the record. Lambie is wrong. We want people to voluntarily access the wonderful freedoms of our country - force is not the way forward. I don't agree with people waiving their freedoms, but that is their choice. So long as they are peaceful.


----------



## Bridges (11/2/17)

manticle said:


> All that will happen is that those women who are under the thumb of a dictatorial male partner will be forbidden to leave the house.
> 
> Less freedom, not more.


This is exactly why it is a bad idea.


----------



## manticle (11/2/17)

Yes it is their right, a point most of have been trying make for what seems like years.

I get that you don't like the burqua and related garments.

I don't much either. I also have a problem with the symbolism of the bindi.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (11/2/17)

Not a bad idea? No one knows how it will pan out, nothing is known until it is tried. Burqa doesn't frighten me and I am sure as an ex military personnel it doesn't frighten Lambie, women can wear what they like my wife does but those wearing the burqa are they wearing what they like?


----------



## manticle (11/2/17)

If we tried every idea just to know how it pans out then we'd be fucked.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (11/2/17)

Everything ever tried is base on an idea which someone has put forward.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (11/2/17)

Pretty much what is going on in the US until they get sick of it and impeach the dick that is suggesting them.


----------



## Rocker1986 (11/2/17)

Burqas don't frighten me but it's like talking to a letterbox with eyes. It's cold and uninviting. Their religion also doesn't require that they wear it so those using that reasoning are misinformed.


----------



## manticle (11/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> Everything ever tried is base on an idea which someone has put forward.


Yes but ideas get vetted/rejected. We don't just try everything because someone thought of it.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/2/17)

Banning the way you dress based on a terrorism thread is just ******* stupid

Talk about the far right going to the point of stupidity



wide eyed and legless said:


> Not being religious myself I was under the belief that religion comes from the soul not the clothes that is worn, does it make a woman less religious by not wearing what her partner forces her to wear.
> *Remember those women who wear the full monty have come from countries where the women are discriminated agains*t in the worst possible way, how many murders by family members have been committed in those western countries where the children of immigrants or refugees have seen the freedom the women have in those countries and want the same freedom, to marry some one who they want to marry, not who their father wants them to marry.
> It is all about control by the man, if what Lambie has put forward will go some way to give a woman respect and freedom then I am for it


in SOME cases, not all WEAL


----------



## wide eyed and legless (11/2/17)

manticle said:


> Yes but ideas get vetted/rejected. We don't just try everything becausd someone thought of it.


It hasn't been approved or rejected as yet it is a bill put forward to be voted on.


----------



## manticle (11/2/17)

And?

People discuss the potential pros and cons which is what we're doing


----------



## wide eyed and legless (11/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Banning the way you dress based on a terrorism thread is just ******* stupid
> 
> Talk about the far right going to the point of stupidity
> 
> ...


So your happy with the way KKK dress, would you feel more at home with them walking around the street, I didn't say all,I have been in many Muslim countries and the majority show women respect and they don't make them go walking around covered from head to toe in fabric and feeding themselves, (not what they choose but what their husbands choose) through a little flap in front of the burqa


----------



## wide eyed and legless (11/2/17)

manticle said:


> And?
> 
> People discuss the potential pros and cons which is what we're doing


We won't be voting, but as I have said women deserve the respect that is due.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> *So your happy with the way KKK dress*, would you feel more at home with them walking around the street, I didn't say all,I have been in many Muslim countries and the majority show women respect and they don't make them go walking around covered from head to toe in fabric and feeding themselves, (not what they choose but what their husbands choose) through a little flap in front of the burqa


Drawing a long bow between the KKK and Muslim women .... I mean the KKK are actual terrorsists


----------



## good4whatAlesU (11/2/17)

Laws do currently exist in Australia to prevent some people wearing what they want to wear in public.

Those people do not wear that clothing for religious purposes, but to identify themselves as part of a club, or 'gang' if you will.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (11/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> *Laws do currently exist in Australia to prevent some people wearing what they want to wear in public.*
> 
> Those people do not wear that clothing for religious purposes, but to identify themselves as part of a club, or 'gang' if you will.


Um...No.....not really... They are not allowed to wear it in licensed venu's, but they can wear it in public...and do


----------



## Brownsworthy (11/2/17)

Am I wrong in believing that in countries such as France there has been an increase of terror related incidents since banning the burqa?


----------



## good4whatAlesU (12/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Um...No.....not really... They are not allowed to wear it in licensed venu's, but they can wear it in public...and do


Um. . no... yes really;

http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-30/queensland-reworks-anti-bikie-laws-toughest-crime-laws/8077572


----------



## good4whatAlesU (12/2/17)

My point being that a precedent has been set where an Australian state government has outlawed the wearing of certain types of clothing in public if they see a link between that clothing and imminent violence or law breaking.

However, I don't think we have reached that place with the burqua .. But nevertheless the precedent exists.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (12/2/17)

Brownsworthy said:


> Am I wrong in believing that in countries such as France there has been an increase of terror related incidents since banning the burqa?


You are correct in pointing out that there is an association between the two, but that does not mean the association is causative.

I.e. Increased violence may have occurred anyway.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (12/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Um. . no... yes really;
> 
> http://mobile.abc.net.au/news/2016-11-30/queensland-reworks-anti-bikie-laws-toughest-crime-laws/8077572


That is only in Queensland....which I often wonder if it is actually part of Australia

Which is actually a ridicules law as now you dont know who or where the Bikies are, before you knew where they where and could stay away from them.

All the law did was drive them underground, which is worse then having them visible to the public


----------



## good4whatAlesU (12/2/17)

Yes. It is part of Australia.


----------



## madpierre06 (12/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> That is only in Queensland....which I often wonder if it is actually part of Australia
> 
> Which is actually a ridicules law as now you dont know who or where the Bikies are, before you knew where they where and could stay away from them.
> 
> All the law did was drive them underground, which is worse then having them visible to the public


Yeah, it did do that. It also had the effect of reducing the public disturbances which had started to proliferate where they were having mass brawls, including incidences of guns going off in the public arena where there was at least one case of a woman, I think, sustaining gun shot wounds. So a bad thing it was not in this case.

And we're onlt part of Australia because it is legislated...so our civil liberties have been affected.


----------



## Brewnicorn (12/2/17)

The QLD anti-association laws were to target bikies for their illicit activity. It has curbed it, not stopped it. It's not outlawed their outfit as a means of curbing public offence because of the outfit. It's part of the larger association and building a tree of offences that's designed to contain the associations. The arguments for the banning of religious dress as comparable are absurd. If you find it confrontational, hard luck I guess. No one has moved to legislate against terry towelling shorts with balls exposed or plumbers cracks from loose ruggers or bunny ears. Worse yet their links to underground fashion groups whose aim is to undermine our civility. I don't need to prove those groups or the motivation exists, I just have to be offended. Nah doesn't wash with me. Live and let live I say. Again, more offensive things to be concerned with.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (12/2/17)

The two situations where fully covered dress (covering the face) in public places may come under justified legal scrutiny in my opinion are;

1. Where there is suspicion that the wearer is being forced to wear the dress, i.e. not by choice.
2. Where there is an imminent security threat and the need for full communication and visual recognition are paramount to ensuring public safety.

Outside of that, persons can waive (forgo) utilisation of their available civil liberties if they like by choice. That's up to them.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (12/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> The two situations where fully covered dress (covering the face) in public places may come under justified legal scrutiny in my opinion are;
> 
> 1. Where there is suspicion that the wearer is being forced to wear the dress, i.e. not by choice.
> 2. Where there is an imminent security threat and the need for full communication and visual recognition are paramount to ensuring public safety.
> ...


Even if they are fully clothed, they still have to remove the garment or be able to show their whole face for the purpose of identification. Same as a motorcycle helmet, balaclava, gorilla make...etc

And just what is " Full communication"...?


----------



## manticle (12/2/17)

Fax, email and phone.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (12/2/17)

Brewnicorn said:


> I just have to be offended.


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


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (12/2/17)

manticle said:


> Fax, email and phone.


So, I am guessing if they dont have any of those on them, they get locked up untill they do...?


----------



## manticle (12/2/17)

Bring back Coles' Spanking machine.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (12/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Even if they are fully clothed, they still have to remove the garment or be able to show their whole face for the purpose of identification. Same as a motorcycle helmet, balaclava, gorilla make...etc
> 
> And just what is " Full communication"...?


Probably seeing the full face and arm/hand gestures I would suggest.


----------



## Brewnicorn (12/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> The two situations...
> 
> Outside of that, persons can waive (forgo) utilisation of their available civil liberties if they like by choice. That's up to them.


Don't take this personally please. It's my personal comments. But I think civil liberties are innate. The idea people can waive these things (an illusion of choice in the face of the law? Please...) Long pants hide more than a veil or helmet or scarf. Shirts hide more too. Broaden the scope of the proposed laws to encompass the realistic threat to everyone's well being by applying it equally or call it for the predatory, exclusionary, discriminatory BS it is. Or just call it a Muslim law and live with the fact there's prejudice at the proposals heart. Moreover look at the proponent/s of the law and then you know it's based on prejudice because they are bastards.


----------



## SBOB (12/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Probably seeing the full face and arm/hand gestures I would suggest.


so teenagers wearing baggy hoodies should also be included right?


----------



## JDW81 (12/2/17)

Brewnicorn said:


> Long pants hide more than a veil or helmet or scarf. Shirts hide more too.


Does this mean I can walk around tackle out, to prove I have nothing to hide?


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (12/2/17)

JDW81 said:


> Does this mean I can walk around tackle out, to prove I have nothing to hide?


Yes in my opinion you have a civil right to whip the flute out just as long as you are not wearing a burqa or something that is equally offensive to 50% of an imaginary population.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (12/2/17)

Nothing personal taken at all. A free open discussion is welcome.

But I do disagree that a shirt or long pants can hide more than a burqa. Having said that, I disagree with the proposed law too - it's not right. Laws that impede on religious freedom (including what clothing a person wears) should only be enacted in the most extreme situations, which I'm not sure are current.

You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.

Civil liberties are VERY important. They form the basis of our free society and constitution. But people can waive free rights if they want to, so long as they don't break the law.

For example, it is a free right in Australia to have your children vaccinated. But some people choose to waive that right in the name of belief. I don't agree with it, but under our law it's up to them.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (12/2/17)

SBOB said:


> so teenagers wearing baggy hoodies should also be included right?


In an emergency situation where there is a security risk, within a protected zone. Absolutely.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (12/2/17)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> Yes in my opinion you have a civil right to whip the flute out just as long as you are not wearing a burqa or something that is equally offensive to 50% of an imaginary population.


That is not a civil right, it's illegal in public and you will most likely be arrested and charged, under Australian law.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (12/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Probably seeing the full face and arm/hand gestures I would suggest.


Glad to see you have dropped the whole " I want to see there faces " argument


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (12/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> \ But people can waive free rights


How...if they are exercising the right to waive them, they are not really waiving them


----------



## good4whatAlesU (12/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Glad to see you have dropped the whole " I want to see there faces " argument


It's "their faces" not "there faces".

And No. I haven't dropped it. In a situation where clear communication is desired I would prefer, personally, to see someone's face.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (12/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> It's "their faces" not "there faces".
> 
> And No. I haven't dropped it. In a situation where clear communication is desired I would prefer,* personally, to see someone's face.*


Although... I dont think it will help your argument here... I am ******* ugly and have nervous twitches, so pretty hard to read

...oh...and yeah, sorry there about their, didnt realise you where part of the Australian Spelling and Gamma Nazi party

...also glad I spelt faces correctly...could have turned to shit real quick


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (12/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> You catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar.


Why are you catching flies? Do you have a pet lizard? Lizards have rights too - this is VERY important if you happen to be a lizard.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (12/2/17)

Actually, you catch HEAPS more flies with malt vinegar....and that is fact


----------



## manticle (12/2/17)

Reptilians again eh?


----------



## Danscraftbeer (12/2/17)

I've got beer bowls in the garden that turn to vinegar real quick with those little vinegar flies. So just what type of fly are you guys trying to scrutinize here anyway.
Also a great little colony of lizards too. I think they eat the little vinegar flies. I'm not sure if this is Politically correct or relevant but its just what popped to mind at the current fusing of this incredibly diversified topic.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (12/2/17)

Gota catch flies for the reptilian overloads...gota keep them fed and happy


----------



## manticle (12/2/17)

JDW81 said:


> Does this mean I can walk around tackle out, to prove I have nothing to hide?


Catch up.



manticle said:


> By wearing clothing, are we waiving our civil liberty to walk, tackle unfettered, through the main streets.


----------



## Jack of all biers (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Civil liberties are VERY important. They form the basis of our free society and constitution. But people can waive free rights if they want to, so long as they don't break the law.
> 
> For example, it is a free right in Australia to have your children vaccinated. But some people choose to waive that right in the name of belief. I don't agree with it, but under our law it's up to them.


I'm going to have to wade in here, because someone is taking the civil liberties with the use of the term (sorry, just had to add that pun). But seriously, civil liberty and personal choice are being confused a lot here. Just because one believes something, does not make it true.....

Firstly, the meaning of civil liberty is; The state of being *subject* only *to laws* established for the *good of the community*, especially with regard to freedom of action and speech. (Oxford Dictionary). Note it states especially, not only.

You cannot waive your civil liberties in Australia, as a civil liberty cannot be waived. It can be taken away, if it existed in the first place, but not waived. Or in other words, you cannot waive your rights to be subject only to laws established for the good of the community. The constant assertion that has been made on this thread that someone, by wearing or not wearing an item of clothing, so as to show their face, would be waiving their civil liberties is rubbish. FULL STOP.

Now there is a difference between civil liberties and rights. The below is from an American take on it, so note the references to Bill of Rights and Constitution, this is where Australia and the States differ in soooo many ways, but I'll let you absorb it first;
It is important to note the difference between "civil rights" and "civil liberties." The legal area known as "civil rights" has traditionally revolved around the basic right to be free from unequal treatment based on certain protected characteristics (race, gender, disability, etc.) in settings such as employment and housing. "Civil liberties" concern basic rights and freedoms that are guaranteed -- either explicitly identified in the Bill of Rights and the Constitution, or interpreted through the years by courts and lawmakers. Civil liberties include:

Freedom of speech
The right to privacy
The right to be free from unreasonable searches of your home
The right to a fair court trial
The right to marry
The right to vote
Australia is NOT a free society and we have little in the way of rights. We have compulsory voting, not a right to vote. We do not have a right to marry (just ask our LGBTQI brothers, sisters and unassigned), we do not have freedom of speech, in fact there are a multitude of laws that prohibit and punish what can be said by whom and where it is acceptable (ie you can drop the F-bomb in a pub and the constabulary won't touch you, but if you went to a church and started F'ing and blinding, you would be liable for arrest for offensive language (same words, different place). If you stood up in a public square, where a Jewish gathering was taking place and started spouting off anti-holocaust rubbish, you would be arrested for causing a public disturbance (and likely have your life saved at the same time). Not freedom of speech that many seem to understand. We do have versions of the other three, although not enshrined as rights, but mostly in common law (A British Commonwealth throw back that still holds in many countries including majority Muslim Pakistan).

We ARE a very tolerant society though (relatively and generally), which expects its citizens to abide by the laws of this land, but quite often have no actual idea of most of the laws. This is quite different from a free society. This free society thing that is bandied about is a bit of an illusion that many have. Maybe because of media and the relaxed attitudes of much of our law enforcement brethren. It seems that much is ignored, because of our general relaxed nature and this is mostly a good thing.

We have no freedom of speech rights, or freedom of association rights or freedom to dress in a particular way rights that are enshrined anywhere. We are governed by the constitutions, statutes, common law and case law (court precedents) of the States and Federation. Very few of these have references to rights. Freedom of religion is one that is reference. Others include that people who are arrested have rights that are enshrined in statute law, for example the right not to answer questions, put to them by the police, or the right not to be compelled to give evidence in a court in which they are charged, but the rest of us can rely on sweet FA in so far as rights to freedoms go. Some of the UN ones, but really they are international rights and well that is a complicated and boring topic that will likely end with the truth, that the UN can't enforce much anyway.

If the laws of this land and its States were enforced to the letter of the law, then many people would be shocked as to the harsh variety of what actually constitutes an offence. For example, there are laws in Australia that enable certain government agencies to hold secret hearings, in which any citizen could be forced, under punishment of imprisonment for non-compliance, to attend and truthfully answer all questions put to them. That citizen would not be allowed to tell anyone that they were going, or had been or what they were asked or spoke about. Now they have the personal choice to refuse, but then they go to Gaol. That's a choice and not a right. These sort of hearings happen on a regular basis all around Australia for the good of the community (sound familiar; also in the definition of civil liberties). Now tell me this is the free society you all seem to imagine we live in.

So I'll end here by saying that one does not have a "free right to have your children vaccinated in Australia". It's a choice, not a right and one cannot waive a right that does not exist.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

Quite a few errors there Jack.

I don't have time to take all of it up now (work to go too) but may resume this evening.

It is not compulsory to vote in Australia. It is compulsory to turn up to the polling station but it is not compulsory to vote.

The Oxford dictionary is not the source of all knowledge.

The word "waive" can be defined as to "forgo" something, which is exactly what some people are doing in terms of their civil liberties.

Our system is based on that of the British, party influence by men including Dr Richard Price who wrote a lot about civil liberties.

Australia is a one of the most free countries in the world with more civil liberties than most others.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Quite a few errors there Jack.
> 
> I don't have time to take all of it up now (work to go too) but may resume this evening.
> 
> ...



Hello...WEAL...is that you.,...

We dont have many civil liberties... I think you are confusing them with perceived freedoms 

If you choose the wear full body clothing, you are not waiving your civil liberty....if you decide to let the police bash you, then you are

Dont forget that Australia does not have a bill of rights, and as Jack has noted, we are one of the most governed ( with respect to the laws that allow/disallow us to do what we like )


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

You have the 'right' to remain silent. You have the 'right' to legal counsel. 

We have a constitution, we don't (arguably) require a bill of rights. 

"Civil" - relating to ordinary citizens. 
"Liberty" - the state of being free within society from oppressive restrictions ... (etc). 

People can choose (take up, forgo, waive) anything they like, so long as it's available to them within the law.


----------



## JDW81 (13/2/17)

manticle said:


> Catch up.


I do apologise, Manticle. I've been working nights and clearly wasn't paying as much attention as I should have been.

I'll be more thorough next time.

JD


----------



## wide eyed and legless (13/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Drawing a long bow between the KKK and Muslim women .... I mean the KKK are actual terrorsists


Sorry, KKK are not regarded as terrorists.
And as for women's dress code I see your happy to go along with the Islamic fundamentalists and keep them covered up, are you also happy to go along with everything else they preach about how women should be treated, I now understand why your ex wife threw the telly at you.


----------



## manticle (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> You have the 'right' to remain silent. You have the 'right' to legal counsel.
> 
> We have a constitution, we don't (arguably) require a bill of rights.
> 
> ...


Right to silence is neither constiturional nor absolute under Australian law.


----------



## manticle (13/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> Sorry, KKK are not regarded as terrorists.
> And as for women's dress code I see your happy to go along with the Islamic fundamentalists and keep them covered up, are you also happy to go along with everything else they preach about how women should be treated, I now understand why your wife threw the telly at you.


Your bows are getting even longer.

The bill was never about respect for women but keep blocking your ears. Point's been laboured enough.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> Sorry, KKK are not regarded as terrorists.


In the same way that the IRA are not either....

From Wikipeadia

In 1870 a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization".[80] It issued hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and terrorism. Klan members were prosecuted, and many fled from areas that were under federal government jurisdiction, particularly in South Carolina.[81]


----------



## Dave70 (13/2/17)

Jack of all biers said:


> Now tell me this is the free society you all seem to imagine we live in.


Perception is reality. Like Mr Humphreys said, 'I'm free!, I''m free!'. Much of the perceived infringements on out 'rights' is the stuff of tin foil hattery. When was the last time you actually heard of someone being finned for offering a reward for 'no questions asked return of stolen property' in Tasmania or South Australia? (Technically punishable by a $500 fine in both states). 

A pub is a place for people 18 years and over, like its says on the door - a church is not. Neither is my daughters pre school, or my sons soccer game. If you exercise your 'right' to scream obscenity at either of the latter, being forcibly removed is the appropriate response. 
You're pushing at an open door with me when you imply we're over governed and over lawed, but there's nothing physically preventing you from doing as you please. 
Todays public square is infinitely more far reaching than a crank with a bullhorn. Last time I checked the internet (at least in the west) was free of censorship. You can start a blog that will reach millions today denying the Holocaust all you want without fear of harassment. 

http://www.fpp.co.uk/


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/2/17)

manticle said:


> Right to silence is neither constiturional nor absolute under Australian law.


True, in *some* NSW laws they can use "your right to say nothing" against you. Basically if you say nothing they can go to court and say they refused to answer questiions


----------



## Dave70 (13/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> True, in *some* NSW laws they can use "your right to say nothing" against you. Basically if you say nothing they can go to court and say they refused to answer questiions


You have the right not to incriminate yourself. In other words, shut the **** up and let your lawyer do the talking. Sage advice in most cases. 
Other than that, you're still only required to give your name and address if the coppers have reasonable suspicion, nothing more.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

manticle said:


> Right to silence is neither constiturional nor absolute under Australian law.


Correct but it is offered nonetheless as a civil liberty. You can waive that liberty or take it up, as is your choice. 

I believe it is time for Australia to cut the apron strings, put on our big boy pants and form our own republic.


----------



## manticle (13/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> You have the right not to incriminate yourself. In other words, shut the **** up and let your lawyer do the talking. Sage advice in most cases.
> Other than that, you're still only required to give your name and address if the coppers have reasonable suspicion, nothing more.


Yes but as far as I understand, exercising your right to silence/refusing to answer questions can be taken into account during trial in NSW (only) by jurors. In other states/territories it is not disclosed to jurors.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> *You have the right not to incriminate yourself*. In other words, shut the **** up and let your lawyer do the talking. Sage advice in most cases.
> Other than that, you're still only required to give your name and address if the coppers have reasonable suspicion, nothing more.


Yep

But there are some NSW laws ( terrorism related ) that if you do say nothing ( ie...where is the bomb ) then you can go down for it


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Correct but it is *offered nonetheless as a civil liberty*. You can waive that liberty or take it up, as is your choice.
> 
> I believe it is time for Australia to cut the apron strings, put on our big boy pants and form our own republic.


The Constitution of Australia (1900) does offer very limited protection of rights:

the right to freedom of religion and;
the right to freedom from discrimination based on out-of-state residence (historical prejudice based upon residence within one state affecting treatment within another)


----------



## Dave70 (13/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Yep
> 
> But there are some NSW laws ( terrorism related ) that if you do say nothing ( ie...where is the bomb ) then you can go down for it


The 'where is the bomb' scenario is an interesting one. As is the real world case of the 'where is the car with the child in it'. Should the cops be able to smack you around (effective torturing you) to get answers when the clock is ticking? Yes, would be my answer, at least in this instance.

Scroll down to case study 3:1 - The Beating.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#MorJusForOneOffActTorEme


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> The 'where is the bomb' scenario is an interesting one. As is the real world case of the 'where is the car with the child in it'. *Should the cops be able to smack you around* (effective torturing you) to get answers when the clock is ticking? Yes, would be my answer, at least in this instance.
> 
> Scroll down to case study 3:1 - The Beating.
> 
> https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/torture/#MorJusForOneOffActTorEme



Worked well for the QLD police force for years...Yellow Pages anyone...


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Yep
> 
> But there are some NSW laws ( terrorism related ) that if you do say nothing ( ie...where is the bomb ) then you can go down for it


And what if you are asked to point which way the bomber went? .. and you don't (or can't) because your sight was restricted by the clothing you choose to be wearing and you can't show your hands. Can you go down for it? .. I would say no, unless it can be demonstrated you are deliberately averting the course of justice (which could conceivably happen - but would be very difficult to prove).


----------



## Dave70 (13/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Worked well for the QLD police force for years...Yellow Pages anyone...


I heard the app is far less persuasive.


----------



## pcmfisher (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> The two situations where fully covered dress (covering the face) in public places may come under justified legal scrutiny in my opinion are;
> 
> 1. Where there is suspicion that the wearer is being forced to wear the dress, i.e. not by choice.
> 2. Where there is an imminent security threat and the need for full communication and visual recognition are paramount to ensuring public safety.
> ...


Excuse me ma'am. You do know that you do not have to wear your burqua in Australia.

Yes I know, but i choose to waive my civil liberties and wear it anyway.

That's lucky, because if you said your husband made you wear it, you would have to remove it.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

pcmfisher said:


> Excuse me ma'am. You do know that you do not have to wear your burqua in Australia.
> 
> Yes I know, but i choose to waive my civil liberties and wear it anyway.
> 
> That's lucky, because if you said your husband made you wear it, you would have to remove it.


Edit: "You could choose to remove it at your own discretion, that's up to you"


----------



## manticle (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> And what if you are asked to point which way the bomber went? .. and you don't (or can't) because your sight was restricted by the clothing you choose to be wearing and you can't show your hands. Can you go down for it? .. I would say no, unless it can be demonstrated you are deliberately averting the course of justice (which could conceivably happen - but would be very difficult to prove).


At least if their hands are bound by cloth, they won't be able to reach as far as you are evidently trying.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

In the name of reaching out to people to ensure they are aware of the civil liberties available to them, in our wonderful country - call me Inspector Gadget.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Edit: "You could choose to remove it at your own discretion, that's up to you"


And/Or if you tell us that someone is forcing you to wear that restrictive gown .. we will be having a very serious chat with them.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> *And what if you are asked to point which way the bomber went? .. and you don't (or can't) because your sight was restricted by the clothing you choose to be wearing *and you can't show your hands. Can you go down for it? .. I would say no, unless it can be demonstrated you are deliberately averting the course of justice (which could conceivably happen - but would be very difficult to prove).


If you could not see it then that is legit. No different to saying " I didnt see it cause I was turnded the other way " or " there was a person/car/object blocking my view "


----------



## Liam_snorkel (13/2/17)

surely the biggest disadvantage of wearing a burqa is that every time you fart the only vent for the gas to escape is in front of your face. Other than that it's all positive. maximum sun protection, don't have to think about what outfit to wear etc


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> And/Or if you tell us that someone is forcing you to wear that restrictive gown .. we will be having a very serious chat with them.


Yeah...right ( wing )


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/2/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> surely the biggest disadvantage of wearing a burqa is that every time you fart the only vent for the gas to escape is in front of your face.* Other than that it's all positive. maximum sun protection, don't have to think about what outfit to wear etc*


Should have worn a Burqa


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Yeah...right ( wing )


I've never been called right wing before .. that's quite a new concept. 

I am usually (as in this case) standing up for people's liberties.


----------



## Dave70 (13/2/17)

Liam_snorkel said:


> surely the biggest disadvantage of wearing a burqa is that every time you fart the only vent for the gas to escape is in front of your face. Other than that it's all positive. maximum sun protection, don't have to think about what outfit to wear etc


But black is such a hot color.


----------



## Dave70 (13/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Should have worn a Burqa
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thats so totally fucked when that happens on holidays.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

Then the rock which had made such a large splash in the pond disappeared, the ripples calmed, and all was quiet.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Then the rock which had made such a large splash in the pond disappeared, the ripples calmed, and all was quiet.


Thank God for that


----------



## Jack of all biers (13/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> Perception is reality. Like Mr Humphreys said, 'I'm free!, I''m free!'. Much of the perceived infringements on out 'rights' is the stuff of tin foil hattery. When was the last time you actually heard of someone being finned for offering a reward for 'no questions asked return of stolen property' in Tasmania or South Australia? (Technically punishable by a $500 fine in both states).
> 
> A pub is a place for people 18 years and over, like its says on the door - a church is not. Neither is my daughters pre school, or my sons soccer game. If you exercise your 'right' to scream obscenity at either of the latter, being forcibly removed is the appropriate response.
> You're pushing at an open door with me when you imply we're over governed and over lawed, but there's nothing physically preventing you from doing as you please.
> ...


Ha, ha. Reading back what I wrote, i guess I can't blame someone for thinking I was a foil hat wearing, paranoid, conspiracy theorist.  

Dave, you read something into my post that I did not intend to imply. That's the problem with the written word, sometimes. I guess I wasn't careful enough with my wording, but it was late. I was not trying to imply that the laws were heavy handed or that we were over governed or over legislated. I was only trying to state that the premise that we have certain freedoms or rights, that were being espoused by some on the thread, are a bit of an illusion. I think the popular American culture that we are exposed to constantly has warped the perception of reality. The examples I used were to provide insight into the fact that we don't have this absolute freedom that some seem to think we do and that there is legislation that prevent us from doing many things that some people think we are entitled. On the flip side, there are many things we can do, that we have no entitlement too. We can still do them and it's not breaking any law, but that does not mean it is a civil liberty or a right. 

The example with the pub and church are actual examples of matters that were taken to court (I can't find the case law just now, but it doesn't matter, they are poor examples for what I was trying to say anyway). The public square thing was another example from laws preventing people from espousing their opinions or beliefs in certain situations. In America, similar things are allowed, under the guise of freedom of expression. I think we all remember the Quran burnings and other stupid things that have gone on in recent years over there. Yes, the internet is a great way for people to hide their hate speech or other B.S., but it doesn't necessarily make it legal in Australia, but again that is getting way off point.

Sorry I pushed at your open door..... :unsure: The foil hat came down over my eyes, so I missed it :lol: You really should shut your door, anyone might wander in and steal your home brew :drinks:


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/2/17)




----------



## Black Devil Dog (13/2/17)




----------



## goomboogo (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Then the rock which had made such a large splash in the pond disappeared, the ripples calmed, and all was quiet.


Although the rock has since spoken, he could have remained silent because he owned you.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

Those that play the man often think they have won, when in reality the ball was placed in the back of their net a long time ago.


----------



## goomboogo (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Those that play the man often think they have won, when in reality the ball was placed in the back of their net a long time ago.


No one in this thread has played the man. The rock as you referred to him, replied to your claims and I simply stated that you were unable to answer any of his points. It's not your defintion of civil rights and civil liberties that is lacking. It's the understanding of how such things are formed that you need to work on in order to improve your argument.


----------



## Jack of all biers (13/2/17)

I really um'd and ah'd about posting on this topic in the first place, as it most often ends badly. I think someone great once said, 'never argue with an idiot, as they will bring you down to their level and beat you with experience'. Well I guess the same goes for Trump, so maybe I'm bringing it back on topic. I guess I can't help myself, as my brain hurts. Maybe it's the foil hats.....



good4whatAlesU said:


> Quite a few errors there Jack.
> 
> I don't have time to take all of it up now (work to go too) but may resume this evening.
> 
> ...





good4whatAlesU said:


> Being able to walk down the street freely showing your face and identify is a civil liberty. Which under Australian law can be waived by choice.


Given this is the comment that hurts the brain the most, I will ask you in all honesty, can you name the civil liberty you mean and can you state which Australian legislation you are referring to in the above comment. Please post the link to this piece of legislation as I would like to read it.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (13/2/17)

call it a draw then?


----------



## goomboogo (13/2/17)

The holy grail of diplomacy.


----------



## Zorco (13/2/17)




----------



## manticle (13/2/17)

Cat bad or sad?


----------



## Zorco (13/2/17)

meow


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (13/2/17)

Cat be still


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

And then... there was a loud splash as someone else threw a large rock into the pond...

As you point out given the law can't be practically applied, it is redundant and accepted that once you get your name crossed off the list you can do what you like. Many do. Do you know of any individual who has been otherwise prosecuted?

There are many dictionaries, most of which are updated yearly so to pick one definition from one dictionary from one year as a point of fact is invalid.

My point is, that we have many freedoms available to citizens of our country. One of which is the freedom to walk down the street, with our face shown, communicating fully as we choose. Personally I think that's a great thing. 

We also have freedom of religion. That is also a great thing (especially if you are religious). Those who practice restraints and restrictions as part of their religion do so freely under Australian law (good), but in my opinion - as such they choose to forgo (waive), by choice, other freedoms available to them. Mostly, it is women who 'choose' to make those self chosen sacrifices, based on religious text written by men.


----------



## manticle (13/2/17)

Using a widely accepted reference text is invalid?

Your points are poorly made and laboured and I don't think you've found much support.

Rock analogy is pretty average too.

Sorry to be so blunt.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

Your opinion is your own and you are welcome to it.

I disagree and retain the right to do so in a civil manner.


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (13/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> In the name of reaching out to people to ensure they are aware of the civil liberties available to them, in our wonderful country - call me Inspector Gadget.


or perhaps another Inspector


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

QED


----------



## good4whatAlesU (13/2/17)

Good evening gentlemen, sleep well.


----------



## goomboogo (13/2/17)

The issue of dictionary editors making regular updates to definitions is vexed. Macquarie's decision to expand the definition of misogyny was an appeasement to a high profile individual's incorrect use of the term. The claim that language evolves and dictionaries need to keep pace with such changes is raising a white flag to abuse and misunderstanding of the language. Using this logic, it is only a matter of time before we see Macqaurie change their definition of ironic to include, 'a remarkable concurrence of events or circumstances without apparent causal connection.


----------



## Blind Dog (14/2/17)

31 pages and no one has answered the OP. Hillary or Donald? Personally, given that choice, celibacy is exceedingly attractive.

Burqa? I don't get why anyone with a free choice would wear it, but then I dont get why anyone willingly voted for Trump. Both choices need to be honoured in a free society. Just because I don't get your choice should not mean you no longer get to make it.


----------



## wynnum1 (14/2/17)

Blind Dog said:


> 31 pages and no one has answered the OP. Hillary or Donald? Personally, given that choice, celibacy is exceedingly attractive.
> 
> Burqa? I don't get why anyone with a free choice would wear it, but then I dont get why anyone willingly voted for Trump. Both choices need to be honoured in a free society. Just because I don't get your choice should not mean you no longer get to make it.


What about special forces Burqa.


----------



## Zorco (14/2/17)

Blind Dog said:


> 31 pages and no one has answered the OP. Hillary or Donald? Personally, given that choice, celibacy is exceedingly attractive.
> 
> Burqa? I don't get why anyone with a free choice would wear it, but then I dont get why anyone willingly voted for Trump. Both choices need to be honoured in a free society. Just because I don't get your choice should not mean you no longer get to make it.


I did, a few posts up


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (14/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> There are many dictionaries, most of which are updated yearly so to pick one definition from one dictionary from one year as a point of fact is invalid.


Sounds a bit like the bible


----------



## Dave70 (14/2/17)

Jack of all biers said:


> Ha, ha. Reading back what I wrote, i guess I can't blame someone for thinking I was a foil hat wearing, paranoid, conspiracy theorist.
> 
> Dave, you read something into my post that I did not intend to imply. That's the problem with the written word, sometimes. I guess I wasn't careful enough with my wording, but it was late. I was not trying to imply that the laws were heavy handed or that we were over governed or over legislated. I was only trying to state that the premise that we have certain freedoms or rights, that were being espoused by some on the thread, are a bit of an illusion. I think the popular American culture that we are exposed to constantly has warped the perception of reality. The examples I used were to provide insight into the fact that we don't have this absolute freedom that some seem to think we do and that there is legislation that prevent us from doing many things that some people think we are entitled. On the flip side, there are many things we can do, that we have no entitlement too. We can still do them and it's not breaking any law, but that does not mean it is a civil liberty or a right.
> 
> ...


We still need people like you on the wall JOAB.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (14/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> In the same way that the IRA are not either....
> 
> From Wikipeadia
> 
> In 1870 a federal grand jury determined that the Klan was a "terrorist organization".[80] It issued hundreds of indictments for crimes of violence and terrorism. Klan members were prosecuted, and many fled from areas that were under federal government jurisdiction, particularly in South Carolina.[81]


Some people will see a terrorist in their own shadow.
https://www.change.org/p/barack-obama-u-s-house-of-representatives-u-s-senate-list-the-ku-klux-klan-as-an-official-terrorist-organization



manticle said:


> Your bows are getting even longer.
> 
> The bill was never about respect for women but keep blocking your ears. Point's been laboured enough.


Many bills get put forward and passed as a double edged sword, In the bill in question have you not even considered why it has been written in, that anyone forcing a woman or child to wear a burqa or full face covering can face a fine and imprisonment?
http://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/98263/five-reasons-ban-burqa-daniel-greenfield


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (14/2/17)

So why is everyone up in arms about the burqa......From what I have ascertained, no one in Australia has been killed or maimed by a women wearing a burqa. I might be wrong, but cant find anything

I think it more hysterics and irrational fear

We have a large Sikh population up around here, wonderful people, but there are those who oppose them wearing turbans because **** witts think they are terrorists


----------



## bradsbrew (14/2/17)

A lot of the people arguing against the burka do not even know what it is.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (14/2/17)

I don't think there has been any terrorist wearing burqa's burqa's, maybe the odd suicide bomber but that could still happen wearing a hijab, the only ones to complain who are directly involved would be the men, and the few women who chose to wear it.
http://pol-check.blogspot.com.au/2011/04/do-muslim-women-want-to-wear-burka.html


----------



## manticle (14/2/17)

So the answer to women being potentially forced to do something is to force women to do something?

The motive behind is clear, indicated by both the others who support it and Lambie's previous discussions about extreme Islam, halal and Islamic dress. One more time in case you missed the other 7 million - the ban is only enforced if/when a certain terror level is reached so what happens to the noble motivations when the level drops lower? 

A discussion around cultural practices that do impinge on legal freedoms and solutions to them would be most welcome. This bill is not it.

You have avoided (multiple times) two points previously made.

1. Some Muslim women, educated and free thinking, willingly wear islamic headress of various types.

2. Simply banning the burqua in public will give those women who are forced by husbands/fathers/uncles/brothers (and I am absolutely not suggesting that isn't the case many, many times) less choice because if successful, they then won't be allowed to leave the house.

As for KKK - there's a number of reasons why they're not a terrorist organisation officially, including the fact there are multiple klans through history with some common aims but no common organisation. Many of these, including the original/primary have conducted themselves in a way designed to instil terror in civilians through violent acts (with identity disguised).

I don't believe the US ever designate domestic groups as Terrorist either - only foreign. Happy to be wrong on that last.

And for the record, I doubt there is anyone here who agrees with fundamentalist perspectives on the role or treatment if women - not you, not I, not DBs and not GFWAU.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (14/2/17)

Hillary. I would have voted for Hillary - the lesser bad of two bad choices. 

People are concerned about the burqa because most of us would not like our mothers, sisters, wives, daughters to have their lives restricted in this way. For me it's not about any sort of terrorism threat (except in the case of an emergency where Everybody needs to be identifiable). 

Wear it if they choose under religious freedom, but know that they choose that restriction voluntarily forgoing other freedoms available to them.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (14/2/17)

manticle said:


> And for the record, I doubt there is anyone here who agrees with fundamentalist perspectives on the role or treatment if women - not you, not I, not DBs and not GFWAU.


Like.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (14/2/17)

manticle said:


> As for KKK - there's a number of reasons why they're not a terrorist organisation officially, including the fact there are multiple klans through history with some common aims but no common organisation. Many of these, including the original/primary *conducted themselves in a way designed to instil terror in civilians* through violent acts (with identity disguised).


Which would make them Terrorists...


----------



## manticle (14/2/17)

My point exactly.

Keyword being 'officially'


----------



## manticle (14/2/17)

Ironically KKK were originally associated with democrats.


----------



## Dave70 (14/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Hillary. I would have voted for Hillary - the lesser bad of two bad choices.
> 
> People are concerned about the burqa because most of us would not like our mothers, sisters, wives, daughters to have their lives restricted in this way. For me it's not about any sort of terrorism threat (except in the case of an emergency where Everybody needs to be identifiable).
> 
> Wear it if they choose under religious freedom, but know that they choose that restriction voluntarily forgoing other freedoms available to them.


More problematic in the broader sense is the burka / niqab and its association with a more fundamentalists interpretation of islam and the backward aspects of the culture surrounding it. I think this is what really makes people uncomfortable. Many seem to be operating under the false assumption that discouraging or banning it is like banning islam. If only it were that easy. 
To my mind, the key is consent, at least in a country where the law protects a womens rights. On the other hand, if a woman chooses to be muslim in the more traditional sense, she has also chosen to be subordinate to her husband, at least on some level, as per the multiple times this is instructed in the quran. How it is. I married a catholic and couldn't even slip 'honor and obey' into my wedding vows..

Hillary also. But its still about as appealing chopping off your non dominant hand if you _had _to choose.
However, the greater fear, particularly of the more leftist liberals is that Trump actually turns out to be good for the country. Maby we've all read it wrong and being a narcissistic lying buffoon con man if the skill set required to govern the US after all.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (14/2/17)

manticle said:


> Keyword being 'officially'


I forgot, the KKK are white Christians...funny how they get to decide


----------



## good4whatAlesU (14/2/17)

Yes (to Dave70). It's no use crying over spilt milk re: the results of the US election. 

The democratic election has been run and Trump won. The world needs to accept that and get on with the task of trying working with him, or failing that waiting it out until he's turfed out or impeached (which is highly likely).


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (14/2/17)

Heart said Hillary but when you consider that the Republicans hold majorities in both houses her legislative agenda would have been dogged in much the same way as Obama's was. So now the Republicans have made their own bed and have to sleep in it. Trump might crash through but will more likely just crash and take his bat and ball away. No lefties or moderates can be blamed for what happens next.


----------



## manticle (14/2/17)

The illuminati still can though.


----------



## pcmfisher (14/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> And/Or if you tell us that someone is forcing you to wear that restrictive gown .. we will be having a very serious chat with them.


Excuse me sir. Are you forcing your wife to wear that burqa? 

Yes I am, why?

You do know you are restricting her rights? We in Australia don't take to kindly to that.

Oh, whatever was I thinking? From now on dear, you can go out wearing whatever you like...............I dare you.

What now?


----------



## good4whatAlesU (14/2/17)

Like any domestic abuse situation, it is difficult but not impossible - but there are supports and avenues available. Restraining orders etc. 

Here is the link to the reachout website. http://au.reachout.com/Tough-Times/Bullying-Abuse-and-Violence/Abusive-relationships?gclid=CKzKnprAjtICFUoIvAodlj4PGg


----------



## wide eyed and legless (14/2/17)

I have no doubt that would probably happen, but at least she will know she has somewhere to turn to same as Aussie women


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (14/2/17)

LAGERFRENZY said:


> Heart said Hillary but when you consider that the Republicans hold majorities in both houses her legislative agenda would have been dogged in much the same way as Obama's was. So now the Republicans have made their own bed and have to sleep in it. T*rump might crash through but will more likely just crash and take his bat and ball away*. No lefties or moderates can be blamed for what happens next.


I cant wait for that


----------



## good4whatAlesU (14/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> I have no doubt that would probably happen, but at least she will know she has somewhere to turn to same as Aussie women


Point of clarification. "they" are aussie women. 

And yes they have the same options I agree with you there.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (14/2/17)

I have a friend who is a Bangladeshi Muslim along with his wife, she wears no head scarf, both well educated, and I eventually asked the question about his Muslim belief,he is very well educated and I asked if he really did believe the Quran he admitted he didn't, but out of respect for his parents beliefs he carried on as if he still followed the faith which is fair enough.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (14/2/17)

I know plenty who think the same of the bible


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (14/2/17)

I knew an Anglican Archbishop who did not literally believe that much of the Bible was true or accurate but he did believe that its teachings helped a lot of troubled people lead a relatively peaceful life. He'd been a Commando in WW2 so I guess he knew a thing or two about the worst of the human condition.


----------



## wynnum1 (14/2/17)

wide eyed and legless said:


> I have a friend who is a Bangladeshi Muslim along with his wife, she wears no head scarf, both well educated, and I eventually asked the question about his Muslim belief,he is very well educated and I asked if he really did believe the Quran he admitted he didn't, but out of respect for his parents beliefs he carried on as if he still followed the faith which is fair enough.


In Bangladesh that sort of thinking can get you hacked to death.


----------



## good4whatAlesU (14/2/17)

wynnum1 said:


> In Bangladesh that sort of thinking can get you hacked to death.


Fortunately for us, we are not in Bangladesh.


----------



## Dave70 (14/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> I know plenty who think the same of the bible


You know plenty of televangelists and Hillsong pastors? 




wynnum1 said:


> In Bangladesh that sort of thinking can get you hacked to death.


That called your first 'caution'.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (14/2/17)

Went to Bangladesh some years ago, Sunni one day Shiite the next.


----------



## Stouter (14/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> More problematic in the broader sense is the burka / niqab and its association with a more fundamentalists interpretation of islam and the backward aspects of the culture surrounding it. I think this is what really makes people uncomfortable.


I'd be uncomfortable to see a friend whom 'conservatively' follows Islamic values, as I myself 'loosely' follow Christianity/Catholicism/Western values, find themselves pressured into abiding by and being judged by Sharia law. Cultural and family obligations would see this happen easily, dress codes and associated perceptions of the broader community aside.
If any religion backs up it's 'rules' with direct punishment, and needs to force control it's believers to follow it, then it obviously goes against all ideals of freedom, free choice, fairness, equality, and whatever other feel good stuff that seems to be getting popular media coverage these days.


----------



## Brewnicorn (14/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> So why is everyone up in arms about the burqa......From what I have ascertained, no one in Australia has been killed or maimed by a women wearing a burqa. I might be wrong, but cant find anything
> 
> I think it more hysterics and irrational fear
> 
> We have a large Sikh population up around here, wonderful people, but there are those who oppose them wearing turbans because **** witts think they are terrorists


Nuns in habits. Bad habits. What are they hiding under there? Catholic priests?


----------



## wide eyed and legless (14/2/17)

I think Pauline will be asking herself, Bill or Malcolm, Bill's lost the plot and Malcolm's never had it.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-03/one-nation-preference-deals-both-parties-courting/8239984


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (14/2/17)

Brewnicorn said:


> Nuns in habits. Bad habits. What are they hiding under there? little boys ?


----------



## pcmfisher (15/2/17)

Stouter said:


> I'd be uncomfortable to see a friend whom 'conservatively' follows Islamic values, as I myself 'loosely' follow Christianity/Catholicism/Western values, find themselves pressured into abiding by and being judged by Sharia law. Cultural and family obligations would see this happen easily, dress codes and associated perceptions of the broader community aside.
> *If any religion backs up it's 'rules' with direct punishment, and needs to force control it's believers to follow it, then it obviously goes against all ideals of freedom, free choice, fairness, equality, and whatever other feel good stuff that seems to be getting popular media coverage these days.*


Does direct punishment differ much from the threat of punishment, like, "if you don't believe in this invisible all magical sky pixie, you will burn in an eternal fire"?

This fundamental practice used for indoctrinating young children to perpetuate the fairy story is worse than wearing any amount of black cloth on your head.


----------



## JDW81 (15/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> > What are they hiding under there? little boys ?


That would be the Padre wouldn't it? The nuns would have a long cane to dish out some good old fashioned catholic punishment (Blues Brothers style).


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (15/2/17)

Come closer... I want to see your faces...


----------



## Dave70 (15/2/17)

Religious discussion 101. How not to do it. 

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


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (15/2/17)

Trump asks national security adviser to resign after he had talks with Russian official about lifting US sanctions then lies to the Vice President about the content of the talks. An embarressed Donald was so wild about national security leaks coming out of the White House that he sent a very angry Tweet out into the world.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-02-15/trump-knew-for-weeks-that-flynn-was-misleading-over-russia/8271224


----------



## Dave70 (15/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Come closer... I want to see your faces...


Comedy GOLD. 

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


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (15/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> Religious discussion 101. How not to do it.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FdfpaftrOwc


She so OWNED Lambey


----------



## RobW (15/2/17)

As soon as Lambie started talking about sharia law and it was clear she had no idea about it, she was dead in the water.
Mind you I do agree with her wealth distribution ideas.


----------



## technobabble66 (15/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> She so OWNED Lambey


But note how to Lambie it's water off a duck's back. Valid, reasonable principles rabidly brushed aside by her fervent righteous beliefs - it's exactly the same mindset of a religious zealot. 

More importantly, note how quickly she accepts it is ok to promote hate towards a minority for the sake of "defending the majority."
I'm afraid things just got very scary if that is ok in the eyes of Australians. 
Are we so ignorant of 20th century history or the foundation principles that have made our society so (generally) harmonious?!

I've actually had a tiny bit of respect for Lambie over the years representing ADF members and a few other causes. This clip virtually negates that. 
I find it deeply disturbing. 

On the bright side, it's not really that different to what Hanson and Bernardi have said over the last few years.


----------



## manticle (15/2/17)

Lambie is a dropkick ignorant bogan who got voted in by other dropkick ignorant bogans cos she said some shit they think is good.

She's transparently and willingly ignorant. I apologise to the mainland that we have offered Abetz and Lambie and hope Wilkie makes up for it.


----------



## Dave70 (15/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> She so OWNED Lambey


I generally tune out to Lambies moronic abrasive drawl so no problem there, but for Abdel-Magied to sit there and skite about how sharia 'gives women rights' - obviously she fails to see the irony in that statement - is not only fallacious, but totally insensitive of the fact that Sudanese women, her country of birth and which she shares dual citizenship with, boasts one of the planets most appalling records of religiously mandated abuse against women on the planet. Perhaps, to use the popular SJW parlance, she needs to check _her_ privilege. Abdel-Magied also fails to mention that "you follow the law of the land in which you are on" works _unless_ it contravenes islamic law. 

The programmers must_ surely_ know what the likely result of book ending Tony Jones with an loud mouthed nationalist and islamic apologist will be, certainly not anything positive. 
But hey, here I am talking about it, just like everybody else, its a ratings win, so well played..


----------



## Dave70 (15/2/17)

manticle said:


> Lambie is a dropkick ignorant bogan who got voted in by other dropkick ignorant bogans cos she said some shit they think is good.
> 
> She's transparently and willingly ignorant. I apologise to the mainland that we have offered Abetz and Lambie and *hope Wilkie makes up for it.*


Never mind him.
Big Dave Foster is ******* awesome! _THWAK!!_


----------



## manticle (15/2/17)

Wish that trunk was Abetz


----------



## sp0rk (15/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> I generally tune out to Lambies moronic abrasive drawl so no problem there, but for Abdel-Magied to sit there and skite about how sharia 'gives women rights' - obviously she fails to see the irony in that statement - is not only fallacious, but totally insensitive of the fact that Sudanese women, her country of birth and which she shares dual citizenship with, boasts one of the planets most appalling records of religiously mandated abuse against women on the planet. Perhaps, to use the popular SJW parlance, she needs to check _her_ privilege. Abdel-Magied also fails to mention that "you follow the law of the land in which you are on" works _unless_ it contravenes islamic law.
> 
> The programmers must_ surely_ know what the likely result of book ending Tony Jones with an loud mouthed nationalist and islamic apologist will be, certainly not anything positive.
> But hey, here I am talking about it, just like everybody else, its a ratings win, so well played..


She actually posted a video on Junkee last night that addressed most of the above issues...


----------



## manticle (15/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> I generally tune out to Lambies moronic abrasive drawl so no problem there, but for Abdel-Magied to sit there and skite about how sharia 'gives women rights' - obviously she fails to see the irony in that statement - is not only fallacious, but totally insensitive of the fact that Sudanese women, her country of birth and which she shares dual citizenship with, boasts one of the planets most appalling records of religiously mandated abuse against women on the planet. Perhaps, to use the popular SJW parlance, she needs to check _her_ privilege. Abdel-Magied also fails to mention that "you follow the law of the land in which you are on" works _unless_ it contravenes islamic law.
> 
> The programmers must_ surely_ know what the likely result of book ending Tony Jones with an loud mouthed nationalist and islamic apologist will be, certainly not anything positive.
> But hey, here I am talking about it, just like everybody else, its a ratings win, so well played..


Just like with conservative christianity, the most successful voices to offer rebellion and transgression/successful alternatives to Islam will need to come from within the muslim community.

Scriptures of all 3 main abrahamic texts are woeful in their positioning on many things - bloodthirsty, nationalistic, discriminatory, bigoted, etc. Literal, fundamentalist and apologistic/relatavistic interpretations all fail but I honestly believe that the dissent needs to come from within.

All can be questioned on faith (eg. How do you know there's a magic guy) but if we accept the principle of religious freedom, then practioners/believers simply need to obey the laws as they stand.

We don't need special laws for muslims - they're forbidden to rape, murder, steal, drive drunk, call a police officer a **** or go through a red light.


----------



## Dave70 (15/2/17)

sp0rk said:


> She actually posted a video on Junkee last night that addressed most of the above issues...


*Junkee* is an Australian popular culture and news website run by new media company, Junkee Media. It covers various topics including film, TV, politics and Internet culture. *Its target demographic is 18- to 29-year-olds*

No wonder I missed it..



manticle said:


> Just like with conservative christianity,* the most successful voices to offer rebellion and transgression/successful alternatives to Islam will need to come from within the muslim community.*
> 
> Scriptures of all 3 main abrahamic texts are woeful in their positioning on many things - bloodthirsty, nationalistic, discriminatory, bigoted, etc. Literal, fundamentalist and apologistic/relatavistic interpretations all fail but I honestly believe that the dissent needs to come from within.


Then I'd suggest Majid Nawez and Ayaan Hirsi Ali would be good people to listen to. 
And Q&A is certainly not the format. 

NOT THE FORMAT!!!
#qanda


----------



## sp0rk (15/2/17)

Admittedly I only saw it because some SJW posted it on facebook...


----------



## bradsbrew (15/2/17)

SJW- Finally i have got something out of this thread.

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=SJW


----------



## manticle (15/2/17)

SJW may take umbrage.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (15/2/17)

Anyone else a little uneasy about the idea we are supposed to learn more about Islam? Or shut the **** up.
I'm not interested in learning any more about religion. It can sicken me to be honest. I can bag them all, safely, maybe not Islam.
So its the greatest religion then? Enough to force you to have to learn about it? 
Its too frustrating to watch that reality TV of the teething of modern multicultural democracy. Its all about a few key underlying things. 
Cut through all the hyperbole crap and define it! 

not that I can... :unsure:


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (15/2/17)

Religion....you know it makes sense


----------



## Black Devil Dog (15/2/17)

If smoking was still allowed on TV, I can just imagine Lambie sucking down and blowing out half a pack of Winnie Reds in between her hostile raspy rants.


----------



## Jack of all biers (15/2/17)

Ducatiboy stu said:


> Religion....you know it makes sense


Says the man that worships a spaghetti god!


----------



## SBOB (15/2/17)

Danscraftbeer said:


> Anyone else a little uneasy about the idea we are supposed to learn more about Islam? Or shut the **** up.
> I'm not interested in learning any more about religion.



Yeah, Im with you
I prefer to make my opinions on current affairs based on my random naivety and what I hear on talk back radio

Its just WAY EASIER


----------



## SBOB (15/2/17)

Jack of all biers said:


> Says the man that worships a spaghetti god!


not 'A' spaghetti god....
'THE' spaghetti god


----------



## manticle (15/2/17)

Danscraftbeer said:


> Anyone else a little uneasy about the idea we are supposed to learn more about Islam? Or shut the **** up.
> I'm not interested in learning any more about religion. It can sicken me to be honest. I can bag them all, safely, maybe not Islam.
> So its the greatest religion then? Enough to force you to have to learn about it?
> Its too frustrating to watch that reality TV of the teething of modern multicultural democracy. Its all about a few key underlying things.
> ...


Nothing wrong with learning about something if you want to run your mouth off about it.

I don't understand wanting to remain ignorant about something you're vocally critical about.


----------



## Danscraftbeer (15/2/17)

My criticism is truly democratic. I do see human as the one species. I'm just cynical, over all, equally. :chug:


----------



## LAGERFRENZY (15/2/17)

manticle said:


> Nothing wrong with learning about something if you want to run your mouth off about it.
> 
> I don't understand wanting to remain ignorant about something you're vocally critical about.


...


----------



## Rocker1986 (15/2/17)

All this nonsense just proves once again that the world would be a far better place if religion of any sort didn't exist at all. We wouldn't be having these discussions about banning headwear, or women being treated like shit because of some archaic religious moral compass, or being threatened with either physical harm or made up bullshit if we don't conform and believe in a fairy tale. The whole lot of it has held back humanity for as long as the shit has existed. Obviously you can't just get rid of it; it has to die by way of more people questioning it and/or adopting evidence based thinking, and eventually it will although not in any of our lifetimes. I would not be against banning indoctrination of children though, as that to me is nothing more than mental abuse.


----------



## Jack of all biers (15/2/17)

Yes, but people fear threats and physical harm. If you get them to believe that some invisible deity can see every thing they do and will punish them now/later/in an after life, then they control their own behaviours. This takes less effort in controlling others by the people claiming connection to this deity. Self control by the powerless, if you will. Fear can control peoples actions and thoughts and control of others is power. The person with the connection to the source of the fear has control of others and therefore power. Power corrupts and ultimate power corrupts ultimately. Some religions are worse (or better depending at how you look at it) than others, but the system behind it is no different than some authoritarian States. It all comes down to political power at the end of the day. As has been stated before on this thread, religions will have to change from within, but attempts to ban cultural ways that people link with their religion will always fail and likely lead to some sort of violence.

This is why we enjoy democracy, because despite all it's failings, it adds so many checks and balances to those who would abuse their control and power over others. This is why we have the separation of powers (independence of Legislature/Courts/Authorities [police etc]), so they keep each other in check. In the Australian system we also have further checks/balance in the Legislature, in the way of Upper and Lower Houses (except you Qld. You always have to be different, but then you did end up with Jo!). The Upper House is supposed to keep an eye on the Lower House.

Even IF it got past both house's of Federal Parliament (which is extremely unlikely in the current Parliament), it would need policing and when someone was charged, it would be challenged in the courts, which would likely end with the law being thrown out. Victoria have adopted the UN Human rights charter, so Lambies legislation would not be able to be enforced in one of the most populace States in Australia. See where it's likely to end up. Yep and so do the Pollies and their advisers. It has NO CHANCE of making it past the first hurdle. Senator Lambie's proposed bill will likely fail and she probably knows it. Maybe she wants it to happen, but it is getting her a lot of publicity and support from those in her constituency that she relies on. 

To bring it back on topic, this is also why Trump will become increasingly frustrated, as the checks and balances will start to hinder his ways. Even with all his alternate facts (They called it propaganda when Nazi Germany did it)


----------



## Danscraftbeer (15/2/17)

Trump already sounds tired. Ha, He is the apprentice now. That's what you get for fast results. Like lighting a fuse gets fast results.

Edit: stupid spell ckeck!!


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (16/2/17)

Jack of all biers said:


> Says the man that worships a spaghetti god!


Told you it made sense


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (16/2/17)

I was watching the news ( the real news, not the fake news ) and a few clips of Trump

One in particular was when he was around a table full of leading women and he basically just cut them off, saying in effect " yeah, I have heard enough from you, shut up "

To me, he does not come across as very " Presidential" He is more arrogant and rude and this will get him into trouble. He is no diplomat that is for sure


----------



## Mardoo (16/2/17)

He's gonna nuke one country or another. Probably France.


----------



## Brewnicorn (16/2/17)

Danscraftbeer said:


> Anyone else a little uneasy about the idea we are supposed to learn more about Islam? Or shut the **** up.
> I'm not interested in learning any more about religion. It can sicken me to be honest. I can bag them all, safely, maybe not Islam.
> So its the greatest religion then? Enough to force you to have to learn about it?
> Its too frustrating to watch that reality TV of the teething of modern multicultural democracy. Its all about a few key underlying things.
> ...


Nothing wrong with bagging a religion. It's a national sport. Most of the defences I've raised belong in the basket of don't confuse ideology or fundamentalism with religion. I now you weren't having a dig at me but just being devils advocate. That's the distinction I'd draw. Fundamentalists are assholes too, but hey...


----------



## Dave70 (16/2/17)

Black Devil Dog said:


> If smoking was still allowed on TV, I can just imagine Lambie sucking down and blowing out half a pack of Winnie Reds in between her hostile raspy rants.


Given some of her comments she made on radio once, I peg her as more of a cigar gal. 
They measure cigars in ring size, right?


----------



## good4whatAlesU (16/2/17)

Personally I don't care if someone worships Allah, Jesus, Ganesh, or the Hairy Caterpillar ... hell even be a 'scientologist' if you want. 

Do it peacefully and within the law, without impinging on other people's (especially women's) civil liberties. Restrict (forgo, waive) your own freedoms in the name of religion if you want .. just do it in full awareness that those real freedoms are available to you if you choose to take them up.


----------



## wide eyed and legless (16/2/17)

good4whatAlesU said:


> Personally I don't care if someone worships Allah, Jesus, Ganesh, or the Hairy Caterpillar ... hell even be a 'scientologist' if you want.
> 
> Do it peacefully and within the law, without impinging on other people's (especially women's) civil liberties. Restrict (forgo, waive) your own freedoms in the name of religion if you want .. just do it in full awareness that those real freedoms are available to you if you choose to take them up.


(especially women and children's)
http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2016/09/20/number-australian-child-bride-cases-doubles-year


----------



## wereprawn (16/2/17)

Dave70 said:


> Given some of her comments she made on radio once, I peg her as more of a cigar gal.
> They measure cigars in ring size, right?


Haha. Yeah .Letting the country know she's a loudmouth with a particularly large vagina probably didn't help in her quest to find a man.


----------



## wynnum1 (16/2/17)

wereprawn said:


> Haha. Yeah .Letting the country know she's a loudmouth with a particularly large vagina probably didn't help in her quest to find a man.


 Even a 747 looks small when it lands in the Grand Canyon


----------



## Dave70 (22/2/17)

UC Berkely students silence free speech with violence. More than a little ironic when you consider Berkely was famous for its free speech protests in the 60s.
Yiannopoulos usually has to give a speech and hurt some feelings before whipping the liberal lefts into a foam of blathering hypocrisy. Seems this time he didn't even need to say a word. 

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/feb/01/milo-yiannopoulos-uc-berkeley-event-cancelled


----------



## manticle (22/2/17)

Antifa are more than liberal left.


----------



## Ducatiboy stu (22/2/17)

Trumps spin doctors are working that fast that it will alter the rotational speed of the earth


----------



## Liam_snorkel (22/2/17)

manticle said:


> Antifa are more than liberal left.


some of the shit they get up to is bizarre.

http://www.metalsucks.net/2016/12/02/antifa-slams-nergal-from-behemoth-for-wearing-a-nazi-costume-while-playing-a-nazi-in-a-movie/

http://www.metalsucks.net/2017/02/17/oakland-metro-operahouse-cancels-marduk-show-in-the-interest-of-public-safety/


----------



## Mardoo (22/2/17)

Gotten stuck in the middle of a few of their riots in the past. Their hearts could be in the right place, but their actions seem truly ineffective.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (22/2/17)

If anything they can work against the cause.


----------



## manticle (22/2/17)

Their approach is tits up in my opinion.

While I have zero positive outlook on far right philosophy or action, antifa use a kind of 'bully into submission those you don't agree with' tactic. Not a fan.


----------



## Liam_snorkel (22/2/17)

^ same.
and much of the time, the people they pick on aren't even bloody fascists.


----------



## manticle (22/2/17)

Mob/vigilante mentality + shit sticks when you throw it. Also massively fond of guilt by association.


----------



## Dave70 (22/2/17)

manticle said:


> Antifa are more than liberal left.


Of course, they're also moronic thugs, they're also mightily confused, it seems, on what constitutes fascist behavior, and for that matter, morality. 

“The moral imperative is to win,” 
It’s absolutely acceptable to use violence. They are 100% certain to use it against us.”


To his credit, Brerkelys chancellor was having none of it. And rightly so.

http://news.berkeley.edu/2017/02/02/campus-condemns-violence-defends-free-speech/


What would it be without the, incisive Trump tweet. 

_If U.C. Berkeley does not allow free speech and practices violence on innocent people with a different point of view - NO FEDERAL FUNDS?_
_— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump)_

I wonder does he mean withdraw funds from the thousands and thousands of graduate and undergraduate students that weren't at the protest, or just the 1500 odd that were? 
Meh. Why complicate it I guess. Cut em all off and build a giant wall with the savings.


----------



## manticle (22/2/17)

I mean they're much further left than 'liberal' but yes I agree.


----------

