I didn't mention sky news. I just like touching nerves on Guardian readers.
Guardian, age, and Socialist weekly?
- Joined
- 30 June 2008
- Posts
- 15,357
- Reactions
- 7,232
Indeed. Usually with dentist drill.
I have carefully crafted a list over the last decade that guarantees response from lefties:
"Guardian sucks"
"Trump"
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,303
- Reactions
- 2,403
Yeah well.... I'd be more than happy if the Guardian sucks Trump into a black hole vortex pit where anything that resembles truth and decency has disappeared up Murdoch's backside never to be seen in the real universe again 
Didn't his "news" outlets get relabelled as "entertainment"?Yeah well.... I'd be more than happy if the Guardian sucks Trump into a black hole vortex pit where anything that resembles truth and decency has disappeared up Murdoch's backside never to be seen in the real universe again
At least he was partially honest about one thing.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,661
- Reactions
- 11,962
"Climate Change "
"Wind farms"
"Renewable energy"
"Trump is a d**k"
"Biden is great"
"Dictator Dan romps home",
PZ99
( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
- Joined
- 13 May 2015
- Posts
- 3,303
- Reactions
- 2,403
Well, given his supporters are about to be forced to testify and thus, speak the truth I guess entertainment is probably the best label that could be used
I noticed you left LGBTQIA off your list. I find this both bigoted and discriminatory for a guardian reader."Climate Change "
"Wind farms"
"Renewable energy"
"Trump is a d**k"
"Biden is great"
"Dictator Dan romps home",
You also left off POC. While the above may have been "accidental", two important struggles being left off the list is outright Nazism. It's the worst thing I've witnessed since Ukraine was invaded by Russia.
The Guardian editor will be hearing about this
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,099
- Reactions
- 16,887
I can't prove it but anecdotally I think there's a lot of people who'd like a government that was economically conservative but not to an extreme whilst keeping out of the lives of individuals except where genuinely justified.
At present we get the opposite. Governments that run up huge debts whilst for a long as I can remember, there's always been some issue where government's trying to dictate how people live their lives.
Our politicians in general, of any persuasion, seem to be spendthrift control freaks.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,661
- Reactions
- 11,962
That would be the ideal situation, except I would point out that when things go wrong in peoples lives, unemployment, illness, low wages etc, most people expect and demand that the government does something about it.
Maybe we have been coddled by government services like Medicare, but the alternative is a commercial health care system like the US, would we want that ?
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,099
- Reactions
- 16,887
I was thinking more of interference as such. Thinking back over the years, there's always been something:
At one point it was about when pubs were allowed to open.
Then the debate was about when supermarkets were allowed to open and the old closing at midday on Saturdays and so on.
Then there's been debates about what consenting adults do in the bedroom.
Once we stopped worrying about what they're doing in bed, then we argued about marriage.
Now I see that smokers are in the firing line once again, that was in the media yesterday. Now I'm not a smoker, I'm somewhat against it actually, but for heaven's sake I think at this point every adult knows it's unhealthy. If people want to smoke well they really don't need ugly coloured cigarettes to discourage them which is the government's latest idea.
At what point do governments stop telling people how to live their lives? Make them aware of danger, educate them and encourage things sure but over the years there's been far too much outright interference in my view.
Here in SA they "improved" shop trading hours by allowing them to open at 9am on Sunday. OK, well that's an improvement yes but I'm really trying to get my mind around why, exactly, we need to be regulating when groceries can be sold in the first place? Some regulations around gambling OK, alcohol perhaps too, but laws as to when I can buy an apple and a box of corn flakes? What serious problem is that fixing?
So I'm basically saying give people freedom, stop making laws for the sake of making laws about things that ought be a matter for individuals to decide. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have Medicare or that we shouldn't have welfare systems and so on but if I want to buy a chocolate bar, well I really don't need government telling me when I can buy it and then, once I've bought it, reminding me that it's unhealthy. Just let me eat the chocolate and go worry about something more serious - like the housing crisis or homelessness or aged care or infrastructure or.....
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,661
- Reactions
- 11,962
I was thinking more of interference as such. Thinking back over the years, there's always been something:
At one point it was about when pubs were allowed to open.
Then the debate was about when supermarkets were allowed to open and the old closing at midday on Saturdays and so on.
Then there's been debates about what consenting adults do in the bedroom.
Once we stopped worrying about what they're doing in bed, then we argued about marriage.
Now I see that smokers are in the firing line once again, that was in the media yesterday. Now I'm not a smoker, I'm somewhat against it actually, but for heaven's sake I think at this point every adult knows it's unhealthy. If people want to smoke well they really don't need ugly coloured cigarettes to discourage them which is the government's latest idea.
At what point do governments stop telling people how to live their lives? Make them aware of danger, educate them and encourage things sure but over the years there's been far too much outright interference in my view.
Here in SA they "improved" shop trading hours by allowing them to open at 9am on Sunday. OK, well that's an improvement yes but I'm really trying to get my mind around why, exactly, we need to be regulating when groceries can be sold in the first place? Some regulations around gambling OK, alcohol perhaps too, but laws as to when I can buy an apple and a box of corn flakes? What serious problem is that fixing?
So I'm basically saying give people freedom, stop making laws for the sake of making laws about things that ought be a matter for individuals to decide. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have Medicare or that we shouldn't have welfare systems and so on but if I want to buy a chocolate bar, well I really don't need government telling me when I can buy it and then, once I've bought it, reminding me that it's unhealthy. Just let me eat the chocolate and go worry about something more serious - like the housing crisis or homelessness or aged care or infrastructure or.....
The issues that you mention were basically the result of religion in the political parties.
The Labor Party was full of Catholics in "those days", and maybe still is. Our PM is a devout Catholic and look at his predecessor.
Maybe we need politicians to sign a "religious declaration" certificate before running for election so we know where they stand.
I didn't know Albo was a devout Catholic until he became PM.
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 6,256
- Reactions
- 11,856
Don't know where you got the Albo is a devout catholic from, but according to this SBS pieceThe issues that you mention were basically the result of religion in the political parties.
The Labor Party was full of Catholics in "those days", and maybe still is. Our PM is a devout Catholic and look at his predecessor.
Maybe we need politicians to sign a "religious declaration" certificate before running for election so we know where they stand.
I didn't know Albo was a devout Catholic until he became PM.
Your not a Mason are you?
Mick
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,661
- Reactions
- 11,962
Don't know where you got the Albo is a devout catholic from, but according to this SBS piece
Your not a Mason are you?
Mick
He said it himself that his mother taught him to love the Catholic church and that he often has conversations with Catholic priests.
- Joined
- 28 May 2020
- Posts
- 6,256
- Reactions
- 11,856
A devout catholic does not have conversations with Priests, they get lectures.
Mick
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,047
- Reactions
- 23,587
I think it all boils back to what we have talked about before, a new boss has to change things, even if it is already working like clockwork.So I'm basically saying give people freedom, stop making laws for the sake of making laws about things that ought be a matter for individuals to decide. That doesn't mean we shouldn't have Medicare or that we shouldn't have welfare systems and so on but if I want to buy a chocolate bar, well I really don't need government telling me when I can buy it and then, once I've bought it, reminding me that it's unhealthy. Just let me eat the chocolate and go worry about something more serious - like the housing crisis or homelessness or aged care or infrastructure or.....
It all boils back to people feeling they are doing something, even if it's counterproductive and actually causes more problems than it solves.
You can't have all these highly paid politicians of dubious intellect, just moving in after the election and saying "jeez this looks like it going o.k, i'll leave it alone". ?
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,661
- Reactions
- 11,962
Yes but you could also say that if things were ok, then the voters would not have changed the government.
