- Joined
- 23 November 2004
- Posts
- 3,974
- Reactions
- 851
Could we please get rid of the NODDIES behind politicians being interviewed!!!
from Collins' list of synonymsThere is no such thing as a neutral political discussion.:shake:
The first 3 contributions to this thread prove you wrong. They are definitely impartial, nonaligned, and unbiased.neutral: disinterested, dispassionate, even-handed, impartial, indifferent, nonaligned, nonbelligerent, noncombatant, noncommittal, nonpartisan, sitting on the fence, unaligned, unbiased, uncommitted, undecided, uninvolved, unprejudiced
from Collins' list of synonyms
The first 3 contributions to this thread prove you wrong. They are definitely impartial, nonaligned, and unbiased.
(Wikipedia)Democracy is a form of government in which all eligible citizens have an equal say in the decisions that affect their lives. Democracy allows eligible citizens to participate equally””either directly or through elected representatives””in the proposal, development, and creation of laws. It encompasses social, economic and cultural conditions that enable the free and equal practice of political self-determination.
Maybe your right Calliope. Maybe it's a badly named thread.
But I do agree with pixel.
I am just trying to create a thread where posters can put political comments that are not one eyed (as there are plenty of those already).
Surely a request to get rid of NODDIES by all parties is neutral.
There is certainly no need to argue about whether you can make neutral comments about politics or not. That’s just arguing for the sake of arguing. But I defend your right to do so!
Ok, here's my neutral request - BAN ALL POLITICAL ADVERTISING!
Unfortunately, I understand pigs cannot fly un-aided....
+1 to that
...and a few more requests:
- Rather than making voting compulsory for all, make it (a) voluntary, and (b) subject to an IC test.
- Ban all Lawyers and career politicians from standing for election. We want leaders that care about the people more than their job security.
- Make it compulsory that for every new law, administrative rule, request form, and support staff requisition at least one other law, administrative rule, request form, and support staff position must be repealed, withdrawn, relinquished.
... to be amended
PS: "IC test" would work similarly to an IQ test, except that it tests the would-be voter's "I Care" knowledge of relevant community issues. While it won't totally eliminate morons from voting for a candidate because she has red hair or he wears tight shorts, it ought to increase the likelihood of some real issues to be considered when a candidate gets the nod.
Ok, here's my neutral request - BAN ALL POLITICAL ADVERTISING!
Unfortunately, I understand pigs cannot fly un-aided....
Before the flying pigs land I suggest we have neutral discussion threads on;
Racism
Religion
The environment
Climate change
Whaling
NBN
etc.
No more nasty debates. Just discussion groups.
Before the flying pigs land I suggest we have neutral discussion threads on;
Racism
Religion
The environment
Climate change
Whaling
NBN
etc.
No more nasty debates. Just discussion groups.
Not sure that we need yet another political thread, but I'll give my thoughts fwiw.
We know that the electorate is really fed up with the behaviour of politicians, their self serving machinations which come well ahead of their giving priority to what's actually best for the majority of Australians.
That we have such excessive levels of middle class welfare, whilst those genuinely in need are still struggling, testifies to their addiction to vote buying.
I wonder if the time is right for the leader of a party to be very candid with the people about a whole new approach? Joe Hockey made some attempt at this several months ago when he declared the age of entitlement was over.
Would most of us be prepared to accept the loss of some current benefits in the belief that we could see some moral and ethical governance return to the country?
Would fewer tax breaks for individuals be acceptable if we could be confident the funds saved were actually going toward addressing genuine disadvantage or to increasing productivity?
I might be on quite the wrong track, but would like to see some real integrity in government, and don't believe it should be a forlorn and unrealistic hope.
.
But let's leave this one to non-partisan political topics. Quite a few members have "got it" and replied in the spirit that Dutchie intended.
Do we really know that, Julia?We know that the electorate is really fed up with the behaviour of politicians
That we have such excessive levels of middle class welfare, whilst those genuinely in need are still struggling, testifies to their addiction to vote buying.
I wonder if the time is right for the leader of a party to be very candid with the people about a whole new approach? Joe Hockey made some attempt at this several months ago when he declared the age of entitlement was over.
Would most of us be prepared to accept the loss of some current benefits in the belief that we could see some moral and ethical governance return to the country?
Would fewer tax breaks for individuals be acceptable if we could be confident the funds saved were actually going toward addressing genuine disadvantage or to increasing productivity?
I might be on quite the wrong track, but would like to see some real integrity in government, and don't believe it should be a forlorn and unrealistic hope.
Those are good and valid points - but the question remains, how large a percentage of the general electorate would support them? Decades of political leaders setting bad examples and buying votes every few years have created a wide-spread sense of "entitlement" that only very few will be prepared to give up, even if they intellectually agree that "something ought to be done" to reign (sic) the waste back in.
Thank you for recognising where I was going with the thought. Definitely a crisis in leadership imo.Which raises interesting points.
If educated people know deep down that these things need to change, have we got a crisis in leadership? In critical thinking amongst the community? Or something else?
That's a realistic question, pixel. Yes, people are happily accepting of bribery, even when it doesn't in fact bribe them to vote for whomever is putting out. But over the last few years, I'm anecdotally, and across a wide range of media, getting the impression that there is a general realisation that we cannot go on this way.Do we really know that, Julia?
I get the impression that a large section of "the electorate" couldn't care less how politicians behave, as long as their welfare cheque arrives on time and they can continue to twitter about the "important" things in life - like "Will Kim Kardashian's next marriage last longer?" or "Is it OK to fart on a plane?"
You might be quite right. I suppose only an election platform from the Coalition with a focus on removing all the waste will tell.Those are good and valid points - but the question remains, how large a percentage of the general electorate would support them? Decades of political leaders setting bad examples and buying votes every few years have created a wide-spread sense of "entitlement" that only very few will be prepared to give up, even if they intellectually agree that "something ought to be done" to reign the waste back in.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?