Politics Super Thread - keep it all in here

[stryker]

You talk about this money being wasted…how about the unbelievable wasteage on climate change - a pseudo science that is being proven more and more to be a sham or the 10's of billions on that stupid NBN? If the government needs funds, cut back on these two disgusting wastes of money.

...but no...they will take it from the people who continually prop this country up...a measly $2 billion. As a result many many people will drop out of private health care and return to public. The rebate being one of the defining reasons to join in the first place. A lot of people I know think of the rebate as a saving that can be used in conjunction with their tax refunds to pay for essential items such as rego etc...they time renewals to coincide with this. Do you know why? BECAUSE THEY ARE NOT BLOODY RICH!!!!!

Fair dinkum, this way of thinking is ruining this country. The sooner we can kick Labor out of power and not have to listen to this type of dribble from appologists for mediocrity like your self the better.

 

[AndTheKungFoSing]

Wats everyones take on the gay marriage being legalised?

 

[tiger_rat]

The Bible condemns homosexuality.!!!

 

[stryker]

Dont see a problem with it.

Pretty silly debate as people are being discriminated against due to something they can not control. Pass the legislation and move on…theres far more pressing issues to consider.

 

[Spartan117]

Online Dictionary says following

**mar·riage
The formal union of a man and a woman, typically recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife.**

One of my closest mates is Gay. He has been in a solid partnership longer than me. He acknowledges that this cant be as be the definition of the word Marriage equals Man + Woman.

Do what you want in life, I dont judge but lets agree to stop reinventing the meaning of words.

 

[Spartan117]

I really enjoyed this Article, comments

<big>Is your Prime Minister a liar?</big>

**Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 07:27am**

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/column_is_your_prime_minister_a_liar/

THE question we now face: Is the Prime Minister of Australia a liar?

Her Four Corners disaster on Monday night is part of a pattern.

Julia Gillard deceives and, I suspect, lies. And what’s killing her is that she does it so badly.

Here are my seven deadliest examples.
**The first: Just a “part-time” typist**

The Socialist Forum was a radical group that helped to bring former members of the Communist Party into the Labor Party.

In 2007, asked about her involvement, Gillard said “many a long year ago” - mostly when “I was a university student” - she’d merely done “part-time clerical and administrative work” for this “debating society”.

In fact, she’d been on the forum’s management committee, organising events and giving speeches. The parliamentary register of interests states she was still a member from 1998 to 2002.
\
\
**The second: “I did not say that”**

On July 6, 2010, Gillard announced she’d talked to East Timor’s President about her plan for a detention centre for boat people.

Her Immigration Minister said our “unauthorised boat arrivals will be returned to East Timor”.

On July 8, after East Timor’s Prime Minister said “what plan?”, Gillard rewrote history: “I did not say that … I’m not going to leave undisturbed the impression that I made an announcement about a specific location.”

On July 9, mocked for flip-flopping, she conceded: “I said in my speech that one possibility was a centre in East Timor.”

**The third: “There will be no carbon tax”**

Days before the 2010 election, Gillard promised: “**There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.**”

A year later, Parliament passed her carbon tax.

**The fourth: Fooling Andrew Wilkie**

In 2010, independent MP Andrew Wilkie agreed to make Gillard prime minister after she promised to make all poker machines have mandatory pre-commitment.

Last month, scared of the backlash, Gillard broke her promise.

**The fifth: “A bit of a lark”**

In 2010, ABC journalist Annabel Crabb told a story of deception that must have come from Gillard.

In 2004, Gillard was Labor’s health spokeswoman, and “one night ...fired off a despairing text message to a friend, confessing exasperatedly that health was too confusing for her”.

To her horror, she accidentally sent the message to Tony Abbott, then the health minister. Fearing he’d embarrass her, she arranged to talk to a regional radio station.

“During the interview she laughingly confessed to having sent tongue-in-cheek text messages to her opponent feigning frustration with the minefield of health reform.

“Had (her email) been raised in Parliament, she would musically have read aloud from the transcript, demonstrating that the whole thing was a bit of a lark.”

**The sixth: “The Marriage Act will stay unchanged”**

Gillard before the 2010 election promised not to allow same-sex marriage.

“We have determined as a Labor Party the Marriage Act will stay unchanged,” she said.

“And that’s what you should expect to see from the Gillard Labor Government if we’re re-elected.”

A Labor MP this week introduced a private member’s bill to allow same-sex marriage, which the Labor Party now supports.

Says Gillard: “The undertakings I gave to the churches are undertakings that I’m abiding by ... There won’t be a government bill.”

The seventh: I did not plot

Gillard yesterday said she’d never plotted to remove Kevin Rudd as prime minister.

“I made a decision to run for prime minister on the day I walked into Kevin Rudd’s office and asked him for a ballot,” she said.
>
But on Monday came her embarrassing exchange with Four Corners reporter Andrew Fowler.
>
Fowler: Did you know that people in your office, two weeks before Kevin Rudd was removed as prime minister, were preparing a (victory) speech that you subsequently delivered?
>
Gillard: Uh well, I did not ask for a speech to be prepared.
>
Fowler: My question was simply whether or not you knew.
>
Gillard: I heard your question and I’ve answered it.

My list does not include many of Gillard’s broken promises or false claims about her “carbon tax”.

No, I’ve listed only the seven deceptions I think damn her most.

**So, is your Prime Minister a liar?**

 

[tiger_rat]

Ditch the witch.!!!

 

[tiger_rat]

http://youtu.be/GxniQ62Kt7A WOULD I LIE TO YOU ??

 

[Cultured_Bogan]

Wats everyones take on the gay marriage being legalised?

I put it to everyone this way:

Shane Warne tapped anything with two legs and a heartbeat while he had a wife at home raising his kids, Liz Taylor was married what… Seven times? Natalie Wood married the same man twice. Yet we're worried about two gay people who love and care about each other destroying the sanctity of marriage? FFS... Let them be recognised as married in the eyes of the law, it's not for the religious groups to dictate their doctrine to the government...

I swear attitudes of some (not anyone on here, I refer to people I've spoken with and such,) toward this show that some are falling behind on the evolutionary curve... I weep for the future of humanity.

 

[tiger_rat]

Wats everyones take on the gay marriage being legalised?

I put it to everyone this way:

Shane Warne tapped anything with two legs and a heartbeat while he had a wife at home raising his kids, Liz Taylor was married what… Seven times? Natalie Wood married the same man twice. Yet we're worried about two gay people who love and care about each other destroying the sanctity of marriage? FFS... Let them be recognised as married in the eyes of the law, it's not for the religious groups to dictate their doctrine to the government...

I swear attitudes of some (not anyone on here, I refer to people I've spoken with and such,) toward this show that some are falling behind on the evolutionary curve... I weep for the future of humanity.

Fair enough mate , but just don't let me catch yar holding hands or kissing in public. GOD NO.!!!

 

[stryker]

Well said CB…I agree.

 

[stryker]

I really enjoyed this Article, comments

<big>Is your Prime Minister a liar?</big>

**Andrew Bolt
Wednesday, February 15, 2012 at 07:27am**

http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/andrewbolt/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/column_is_your_prime_minister_a_liar/

THE question we now face: Is the Prime Minister of Australia a liar?

Her Four Corners disaster on Monday night is part of a pattern.

Julia Gillard deceives and, I suspect, lies. And what’s killing her is that she does it so badly.

Here are my seven deadliest examples.
**The first: Just a “part-time” typist**

The Socialist Forum was a radical group that helped to bring former members of the Communist Party into the Labor Party.

In 2007, asked about her involvement, Gillard said “many a long year ago” - mostly when “I was a university student” - she’d merely done “part-time clerical and administrative work” for this “debating society”.

In fact, she’d been on the forum’s management committee, organising events and giving speeches. The parliamentary register of interests states she was still a member from 1998 to 2002.
\
\
**The second: “I did not say that”**

On July 6, 2010, Gillard announced she’d talked to East Timor’s President about her plan for a detention centre for boat people.

Her Immigration Minister said our “unauthorised boat arrivals will be returned to East Timor”.

On July 8, after East Timor’s Prime Minister said “what plan?”, Gillard rewrote history: “I did not say that … I’m not going to leave undisturbed the impression that I made an announcement about a specific location.”

On July 9, mocked for flip-flopping, she conceded: “I said in my speech that one possibility was a centre in East Timor.”

**The third: “There will be no carbon tax”**

Days before the 2010 election, Gillard promised: “**There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead.**”

A year later, Parliament passed her carbon tax.

**The fourth: Fooling Andrew Wilkie**

In 2010, independent MP Andrew Wilkie agreed to make Gillard prime minister after she promised to make all poker machines have mandatory pre-commitment.

Last month, scared of the backlash, Gillard broke her promise.

**The fifth: “A bit of a lark”**

In 2010, ABC journalist Annabel Crabb told a story of deception that must have come from Gillard.

In 2004, Gillard was Labor’s health spokeswoman, and “one night ...fired off a despairing text message to a friend, confessing exasperatedly that health was too confusing for her”.

To her horror, she accidentally sent the message to Tony Abbott, then the health minister. Fearing he’d embarrass her, she arranged to talk to a regional radio station.

“During the interview she laughingly confessed to having sent tongue-in-cheek text messages to her opponent feigning frustration with the minefield of health reform.

“Had (her email) been raised in Parliament, she would musically have read aloud from the transcript, demonstrating that the whole thing was a bit of a lark.”

**The sixth: “The Marriage Act will stay unchanged”**

Gillard before the 2010 election promised not to allow same-sex marriage.

“We have determined as a Labor Party the Marriage Act will stay unchanged,” she said.

“And that’s what you should expect to see from the Gillard Labor Government if we’re re-elected.”

A Labor MP this week introduced a private member’s bill to allow same-sex marriage, which the Labor Party now supports.

Says Gillard: “The undertakings I gave to the churches are undertakings that I’m abiding by ... There won’t be a government bill.”

The seventh: I did not plot

Gillard yesterday said she’d never plotted to remove Kevin Rudd as prime minister.

“I made a decision to run for prime minister on the day I walked into Kevin Rudd’s office and asked him for a ballot,” she said.
>
But on Monday came her embarrassing exchange with Four Corners reporter Andrew Fowler.
>
Fowler: Did you know that people in your office, two weeks before Kevin Rudd was removed as prime minister, were preparing a (victory) speech that you subsequently delivered?
>
Gillard: Uh well, I did not ask for a speech to be prepared.
>
Fowler: My question was simply whether or not you knew.
>
Gillard: I heard your question and I’ve answered it.

My list does not include many of Gillard’s broken promises or false claims about her “carbon tax”.

No, I’ve listed only the seven deceptions I think damn her most.

**So, is your Prime Minister a liar?**

In a nutshell, the answer is yes she is. The most distrustful PM since I can remember. Broken promises are infuriating but they go with the territory of politics. She however, tries to manipulate and trick the elctorate…different kettle of fish entirely.

 

[stryker]

Fair enough mate , but just don't let me catch yar holding hands or kissing in public. GOD NO.!!!

Why will this matter to you? They are just people in love mate…exactly the same as you and your missus. I'll admit I take the mickey out of gay people a bit...but I certainly afford them no ill will whatsoever.

If the church has such a problem with them using the word 'marriage' then call it something else...but the same benefits that apply to you and me should apply to their coupling - otherwise it is just blatant discrimination.

 

[Rambo2714]

Wow spartan , you actually reporting propaganda produced by a convicted criminal ?
\
\
Posted using RoarFEED

 

[underdog]

No if you say someone on 165K a year needs to be fully subsidised for something they can afford themselves you're delusional. That's over 3k a week before tax. The highest premium on BUPA is $97 a week for a couple. Even if that includes the rebate we're talking less than $30 a week. Pay your own damn health insurance!!

It won't decimate anything - the money being wasted on helping well off people afford to buy another TV is better off spend ON the public health system.

You can bluster all you like but the policy makes zero sense. The Medicare surcharge will still mean it is more economical for wealthy people to take out private health cover. They can afford it and to suggest otherwise is insulting to both our intelligence.

:laughing: I know it must be a hard job for you to come on here and constantly defend the indefensible but can you please try to correctly quote people?

The $166K is per HOUSEHOLD not PER PERSON. You Labor cronies are hillarious I have to say…thanks for the laugh.

**Who is they? Are you talking about the family with three kids where dad earns $90k a year and mum earns $80k? Yeah they are REALLY rich**. Thanks to your idiot mob they are struggling big time. Why should they stay in private health...a system which benefits everyone else, when they are again to be shafted. They may as well go back to public and bludge off the system and guess what? they will. Its been estimated there are a million people in this bracket. You think the waiting queues are long now? give it 6 months!

They can afford it? That mantra is ridiculous in the extreme. Give yourself an uppercut.

It's interesting - My wife and I and our 2 kids earn a fair whack less that that combined - yet we seem to be going ok. Its about balance of lifestyle.

That kind of income should be plenty - even in Sydney! - 170K per year is a heck of a lot of money - even with income tax, and bear in mind, that would be TAXABLE income, so that is after your accountant has gone through your assessable income and delivered you a whole bunch of deductions - so in actual fact the "real income" of this "poor" family like that is probably pushing 200k per year…

The real problem is that these kind families want to live in a 45sq 5 bedroom, 3 bathroom home close to the city, go out to dinner every other night, have foxtel in every room of the house, and drive 2 big, fuel hungry, expensive cars, THEN they have the audacity to whinge and moan that they are poor? :crazy

I don't mind people having aspirations and wanting a comfortable life for themselves and their families - heck I'd love to be in a bigger place to live with my family.

But jeez sometimes you have to accept you can't have everything, and rather than accept the truth that YES you do earn more than the average worker, people find it easier to stamp their feet and say its not fair, because they wish to maintain a certain lifestyle that in reality they probably shouldn't be attempting to maintain in the first place.

Just sayin. Think about your own personal situations, and if you happen to hit this income bracket - ask yourself - am I really THAT poor? Do I have a roof over my head? are my kids clothed, bathed and do they have full tummy's? Am I paying my mortgage/rent on time?

I bet all of you would say yes.

 

[underdog]

Hang on Yoss it was still 83 k for a single A single could still be a single parent with a couple of kids ,mortgage etc Here is an idea instead of continually taking from us Yoss Why don't they take from themselves for once This is the problem with Labor they always lie The Coalition just doesn't always tell the truth Huge difference in my mind

I see where your coming from Happy, however Single Parents have access to a whole plethora of other government subsidies and Family Tax Benefit arrangements, which would more than counteract the hike in private health care premiums - my wife is an early childhood teacher, and the amount of families who declare they are separated to attempt to scam all the additional benefits that single parents get is absolutely disgusting.

The other side of the coin is most single parents would not have that kind of income, and would now not be subsidising someone who can afford it. Sounds pretty fair to me.

 

[Yossarian]

No if you say someone on 165K a year needs to be fully subsidised for something they can afford themselves you're delusional. That's over 3k a week before tax. The highest premium on BUPA is $97 a week for a couple. Even if that includes the rebate we're talking less than $30 a week. Pay your own damn health insurance!!

It won't decimate anything - the money being wasted on helping well off people afford to buy another TV is better off spend ON the public health system.

You can bluster all you like but the policy makes zero sense. The Medicare surcharge will still mean it is more economical for wealthy people to take out private health cover. They can afford it and to suggest otherwise is insulting to both our intelligence.

:laughing: I know it must be a hard job for you to come on here and constantly defend the indefensible but can you please try to correctly quote people?

The $166K is per HOUSEHOLD not PER PERSON. You Labor cronies are hillarious I have to say…thanks for the laugh.

Who is they? Are you talking about the family with three kids where dad earns $90k a year and mum earns $80k? Yeah they are REALLY rich. Thanks to your idiot mob they are struggling big time. Why should they stay in private health...a system which benefits everyone else, when they are again to be shafted. They may as well go back to public and bludge off the system and guess what? they will. Its been estimated there are a million people in this bracket. You think the waiting queues are long now? give it 6 months!

They can afford it? That mantra is ridiculous in the extreme. Give yourself an uppercut.

Why is it ridiculous? Why should the government pay for something that isn't a basic right and that can easily be afforded? I know the figure is per household, maybe I wasn't clear enough in the above. It's still over $3000 a week before tax and you're suggesting they can't afford less than $30 a week? That's less than 1% of their pay. What else would you like the government to pay for? Movie tickets? A night at the opera?

I didn't say they were rich but they certainly aren't poor and they certainly don't need people on minimum wage to subsidise their private health cover.

I also didn't say they shouldn't remain in private health cover - they should. And they can afford to do so. In any event as I am sure you are aware, the majority of people with private health cover still present themselves at public hospitals because the private health system is so poorly run and such lousy value for money most of the time.

 

[Yossarian]

Hang on Yoss it was still 83 k for a single A single could still be a single parent with a couple of kids ,mortgage etc Here is an idea instead of continually taking from us Yoss Why don't they take from themselves for once This is the problem with Labor they always lie The Coalition just doesn't always tell the truth Huge difference in my mind

I see where your coming from Happy, however Single Parents have access to a whole plethora of other government subsidies and Family Tax Benefit arrangements, which would more than counteract the hike in private health care premiums - my wife is an early childhood teacher, and the amount of families who declare they are separated to attempt to scam all the additional benefits that single parents get is absolutely disgusting.

The other side of the coin is most single parents would not have that kind of income, and would now not be subsidising someone who can afford it. Sounds pretty fair to me.

Bingo! What he said. An excellent post.

And I'm sick of people with mortgages they can't afford turning around and crying poor. Nobody forced you to buy a $700,000 house. If you can't afford it, sell it and move somewhere cheaper.

 

[tiger_rat]

Fair enough mate , but just don't let me catch yar holding hands or kissing in public. GOD NO.!!!

Why will this matter to you? They are just people in love mate…exactly the same as you and your missus. I'll admit I take the mickey out of gay people a bit...but I certainly afford them no ill will whatsoever.

If the church has such a problem with them using the word 'marriage' then call it something else...but the same benefits that apply to you and me should apply to their coupling - otherwise it is just blatant discrimination.

The main reason society is letting gays marry is because it's "not hurting anyone"…...... Morals, dignity, and basically our humanity has just gone out the window.

 

[Yossarian]

The Bible condemns homosexuality.!!!

Bible says a lot of things… Besides we're talking marriage. Are you suggesting homosexuality itself should be illegal?