Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
noco said:
And aren't you Fabians happy about that....so nice to see a smile on your little faces.
Click to expand...

Tut Tut...I am not a Fabian.......but must admit you using the term so often (like some people use the F word) makes me wish I was. :)

More tut tut........I am not happy employment is rising particularity youth unemployment, its disgraceful that the current government is crowing about non issues while the house is on fire.

Of course its all the previous mugs fault........isn't it that this lot have been in power for awhile now and they have passed legislation and formed policy (not) to take Australia into the future (not).

I wonder how much longer Australia will put up with a government driven by ideologues from the right running the show.
 
basilio said:
Quoted By Julia

That was a very special effort wasn't it Julia ! And indeed it could be seen as particularly insulting considering that the topic was whether people should be able to simply ignore nasty personal attacks.

Perhaps that was of the reasons I used those phrases ?

But in fact there was another reason which perhaps might be considered more charitable.

For a number of previous posts I was trying to get established that Andrew Bolt in his infamous Aboriginality stories had made many nasty, factual errors about the people he was deriding. To bring some objectivity into the discussion I repeatedly referred to the findings of the judge in the case. You can check out the summary at will. I also produced the relevant extracts.

Wayne just decided this was simply not sufficiently true /relevant whatever. He said the judge was into judicial activism as distinct from simply deciding on the evidence that Andrew Bolt was repeatedly wrong in his factual assertions as well as deliberately nasty.

The final straw for me was his statement that



WOW!! What a breathtaking leap of logic and total disregard for reality. It was at that point I decided Wayne was either

1) Off his meds and therefore incapable of ratiional thought or
2) Completely incapable of understanding what the judge said in regard to what was written by Andrew Bolt or
3) Ruthlessly sociopathic enough to totally disregard the truth and come up with a diversionary falsehood ie everyone else in the media lies as badly as Andrew Bolt in particular the ABC

On balance I thought suggesting the first alternative was the most charitable.

But hey I could be wrong here.
Click to expand...
I have posted the body of the link, shown my point to be absolutely correct; and I am still amused that you believe the ABC to be a paragon of virtue. How naive of you.

Ultimately, your final straw was nothing more than a straw man.

Sorry lover, you painted yourself into a corner there.
 
IFocus said:
Tut Tut...I am not a Fabian.......but must admit you using the term so often (like some people use the F word) makes me wish I was. :)

More tut tut........I am not happy employment is rising particularity youth unemployment, its disgraceful that the current government is crowing about non issues while the house is on fire.

Of course its all the previous mugs fault........isn't it that this lot have been in power for awhile now and they have passed legislation and formed policy (not) to take Australia into the future (not).

I wonder how much longer Australia will put up with a government driven by ideologues from the right running the show.
Click to expand...

And they are being restricted by a hostile Senate who are only interested in power and point scoring rather than the interest of the nation.
 
I have posted the body of the link, show my point to be absolutely correct; and I am still amused that you believe the ABC to beca paragon of virtue. How naive of you.
Click to expand...

Everything is relative, and I for one would back the ABC for accuracy and fairness over their range of their services than any other outlet. And so do most people in virtually every media survey that I've seen.
 
SirRumpole said:
Everything is relative, and I for one would back the ABC for accuracy and fairness over their range of their services than any other outlet. And so do most people in virtually every media survey that I've seen.
Click to expand...

Horace, I wouldn't give a fat rat's if you thought the ABC had a direct line to the Pope.

Basilio asked for validation of my comments.

I gave one easily found example.... validated, case closed.

I remember the classic example back in the Fraser Labor years:

Malcolm said = "This budget is designed to win the confidence of the Australian people"

ABC reported = "Today the Prime Minister admitted his budget was nothing more than a confidence trick"

Noice!:rolleyes:
 
wayneL said:
Horace, I wouldn't give a fat rat's if you thought the ABC had a direct line to the Pope.
Click to expand...

And I don't give a rat's if you think the ABC is the devil's lawyer, most people don't agree with you.

http://www.crikey.com.au/2013/01/22/our-trust-in-media-abc-still-leads-as-commercial-media-struggle/

Malcolm said = "This budget is designed to win the confidence of the Australian people"

ABC reported = "Today the Prime Minister admitted his budget was nothing more than a confidence trick"
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe the ABC said that, I think you are having me on.
 
noco said:
And they are being restricted by a hostile Senate who are only interested in power and point scoring rather than the interest of the nation.
Click to expand...

Behaving like Abbott I agree its a shocker Abbott could bring on a DD but wont because he will end up with more PUP problems than he has now.
 
Always a heady mix religion and politics.

Eric Abetz under fire for backing false claims linking abortion to breast cancer

AMA president says it is inappropriate for a minister to cite ‘pseudoscience’ put out by a group pushing its ideology

A senior government minister, Eric Abetz, has faced criticism from the Australian Medical Association and the Breast Cancer Network of Australia for giving credence to a debunked link between abortion and breast cancer.

The employment minister, who is also the government’s leader in the Senate, said during a television interview: “I think the studies, and I think they date back from the 1950s, assert that there is a link between abortion and breast cancer.”

Abetz was defending his support for the upcoming World Congress of Families event in Melbourne where the speakers will include an American anti-abortion campaigner and doctor, Angela Lanfranchi, who also opposes use of the contraceptive pill.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...alse-claims-linking-abortion-to-breast-cancer
 
I think this is terribly unfair and typical left point scoring



Eric Abetz's abortion backtrack: an opportunity to study Liberal spin in its natural habitat

Abetz’s ‘clarifying’ remarks are a great opportunity to observe Liberal politicians’ spin when they’re caught in the wrong – it’s like watching an animal documentary

Last night, openly anti-abortion but pro-job-application senator Eric Abetz linked breast cancer and abortion on a TV interview with Channel 10’s the Project.

This morning, the senator claims he “studiously avoided’’ linking breast cancer with abortion. Not only that but, that he was “cut off before being able to acknowledge that Dr Angela Lanfranchi’s views on this topic were not the accepted medical view’’. This will be news to anyone who watched him gruffly cite previous medical studies, only to witness his collapsing brow when told the Australian Medical Association think Lanfranchi’s views are rubbish.

Abetz’s clarifying remarks are a classic opportunity to observe up close the how Liberal politicians try to deny they’ve laid a big, steaming turd of stupidity stinking up the nation. Put your best David Attenborough voice on for this.
Click to expand...

http://www.theguardian.com/commenti...-to-study-liberal-spin-in-its-natural-habitat
 
IFocus said:
Now we get to real pressure rising.....more facts from the ABC

Unemployment surges to 12-year high at 6.4 per cent; youth jobless figure hits 14 pc
Click to expand...

12 years hey..Tony Abbott and John Howard share another dubious achievement.
 
Well said, Wayne.

It is getting ridiculous hearing the squealing of the left, whenever any discussion is mentioned, which I have brought up through a few of these threads.

It just shuts down any discussion and it is wrong.
ABC is a top contender.

I am hoping that things change somehow, otherwise it does concern me.
 
Tink said:
Well said, Wayne.

It is getting ridiculous hearing the squealing of the left, whenever any discussion is mentioned, which I have brought up through a few of these threads.

It just shuts down any discussion and it is wrong.
ABC is a top contender.

I am hoping that things change somehow, otherwise it does concern me.
Click to expand...

What discussions has the left "shut down"?

If you've got a chance could answer the question I asked? Thanks.

McLovin said:
I asked if you have a problem with that group picketing the funerals of dead soliders/firefighters/bombing victims with billboards saying "God hates fags" and shouting obscenities at mourners. I'll infer, from your somewhat vague answer, that no, you don't see a problem with it as its people exercising their freedom of speech. The relatives of the dead are simply being offended because they want to. :rolleyes:
Click to expand...
 
I asked if you have a problem with that group picketing the funerals of dead soliders/firefighters/bombing victims with billboards saying "God hates fags" and shouting obscenities at mourners. I'll infer, from your somewhat vague answer, that no, you don't see a problem with it as its people exercising their freedom of speech. The relatives of the dead are simply being offended because they want to.
Click to expand...

I'm not trying to pick an argument, but I'd be interested in what you think should be done about the above ?

I'd suggest there may be a remedy in law for "disturbing the peace". Is that strong enough ? Otherwise what else would you suggest ?
 
SirRumpole said:
I'm not trying to pick an argument, but I'd be interested in what you think should be done about the above ?

I'd suggest there may be a remedy in law for "disturbing the peace". Is that strong enough ? Otherwise what else would you suggest ?
Click to expand...

Move them on. I don't believe in unabashed freedom of speech. It needs limits. Disturbing the peace sounds good enough to me. It's a pretty dismal state of affairs when a few religious nutters can hurl abuse at the funerals of those who died serving their country.

The only reason I brought it up is because Tink said that

Not even America has sacrificed their freedom for peace.
Click to expand...

So presumably she thinks this sort of stuff is good.
 
McLovin said:
So presumably she thinks this sort of stuff is good.
Click to expand...
I don't think you can draw that conclusion Macca.

Here's my perspective FWIW. I spoke earlier of the hierarchy of liberties.

So we have:
1) The liberty of free speech, in this case to share their view that God is a homophobe
2) The liberty to conduct a funeral in relative peace, without intrusion from activists of one sort or another.

Clearly in the case mentioned, one liberty is impinging on another liberty, viz 1 is impinging on 2. Furthermore, the exercise of these liberties was not coincident, the church group targeted the funeral.

I think the standards we hold in the west would uphold liberty 2 over 1 in this instance, the church group can go make their point elswhere.

So while they have the liberty to be asses, they can do it elswhere and should be moved on.
 
wayneL said:
I don't think you can draw that conclusion Macca.

Here's my perspective FWIW. I spoke earlier of the hierarchy of liberties.

So we have:
1) The liberty of free speech, in this case to share their view that God is a homophobe
2) The liberty to conduct a funeral in relative peace, without intrusion from activists of one sort or another.

Clearly in the case mentioned, one liberty is impinging on another liberty, viz 1 is impinging on 2. Furthermore, the exercise of these liberties was not coincident, the church group targeted the funeral.

I think the standards we hold in the west would uphold liberty 2 over 1 in this instance, the church group can go make their point elswhere.

So while they have the liberty to be asses, they can do it elswhere and should be moved on.
Click to expand...

That's pretty well reasoned logic, Wayne. And you'd think a mature society would reach the same conclusion.

The problem is that in the US, the Constitution recognises the right to free speech but does not recognise the right to conduct a funeral in relative peace. These sort of outcomes are the result of such an absolute freedom. The US Supreme Court agreed in Snyder v Phelps. That particular case concerned the same group who picketed the funeral of a solider who had been killed in Iraq.

In an 8–1 decision (with the judges ruling the same way as they did in United States v. Stevens in 2010),[27] the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Phelps, upholding the Fourth Circuit's decision. Chief Justice John Roberts (as in the Stevens case) wrote the majority opinion stating "What Westboro said, in the whole context of how and where it chose to say it, is entitled to 'special protection' under the First Amendment and that protection cannot be overcome by a jury finding that the picketing was outrageous."[28]

The court's opinion also stated that the memorial service was not disturbed, saying, "Westboro stayed well away from the memorial service, Snyder could see no more than the tops of the picketers' signs, and there is no indication that the picketing interfered with the funeral service itself."[29] The decision also declined to expand the "captive audience doctrine", saying that Snyder was not in a state where he was coerced to hear the negative speech.[30]

Justice Stephen Breyer wrote a concurring opinion, emphasizing his view that the decision related only to picketing, and did not take into consideration Westboro Baptist Church's on-line publications that attacked the Snyder family.[31]

Justice Samuel Alito was the lone dissenting justice in this case, beginning his dissent with, "Our profound national commitment to free and open debate is not a license for the vicious verbal assault that occurred in this case."[28] He concluded, "In order to have a society in which public issues can be openly and vigorously debated, it is not necessary to allow the brutalization of innocent victims like petitioner."[30]
Click to expand...

I doubt that a bunch of agrarian slave owners really considered these sort of things when they hurriedly wrote that imperfect document.
 
I would have thought along Wayne's interpretation, McLovin.

You said yourself that you thought it should be changed.

The only reason I mentioned America, at that moment, was because I was disappointed that Abbott had changed his mind.
 
Tink said:
I would have thought along Wayne's interpretation, McLovin.

You said yourself that you thought it should be changed.

The only reason I mentioned America, at that moment, was because I was disappointed that Abbott had changed his mind.
Click to expand...

Fair enough, Tink. I thought you were saying we should go down the path of America.:)

I don't have a problem with these fools protesting about God hating whoever. It's where they choose to protest. Generally, I think free speech is about having a market of ideas. Once you start to suppress free speech it ferments underground. Having said that, there do need to be limits, like this example.
 
McLovin said:
Fair enough, Tink. I thought you were saying we should go down the path of America.:)

I don't have a problem with these fools protesting about God hating whoever. It's where they choose to protest. Generally, I think free speech is about having a market of ideas. Once you start to suppress free speech it ferments underground. Having said that, there do need to be limits, like this example.
Click to expand...

I get Brandis and his right to bigotry remarks. I can even pretty much support it. Stoopidity is not a crime.

What I have issues with, and the Bolt case was a prime example, is a person who is unable to make an argument without making up the facts themselves. If you can't make a cogent argument based on verifiable facts, then you really need to rethink your argument, or better yet keep it to yourself, because it wont take long for anyone who's able to critically think and do the odd google search to quickly realise you're full of frass.

So yes, we have the right to free speech, but be respectful in the way you do it. The Church group you highlighted has shown nothing like the Christian values they supposedly uphold - I certainly doubt you'd ever find a group of atheists trying to make a point in public in a similar way.

If you can't make a truthful argument in a respectful manner, then I hope no one listens, or if they do that they rip your arguments apart and embarrass you in public.
 
Top