Jump to content

Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Tyno said:

Wong had to vote against SSM legislation because her party voted against it. 
They weren’t allowed a conscience vote at the time. 
I dunno how she could look in the mirror doing that, but it’s a stretch to say it was reflective of her views. 
Not that Jimbo would ever be selective with the truth to suit his agenda 🤣

In the Labor party, you get told what your views are.  And if you don't vote accordingly, you get the boot

So it was indeed reflective of her views at the time

It was only when Tony Abbott became PM and Labor realised that they could use SSM as a stick to beat him with, that Wong was allowed to change her position back to what we would expect 

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 212
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

That's right. You don't.

You didn't mention that he decided to put his country first in standing up to the Irish rebels with the Black and Tans, The criticism came from the left when he stood up to the miners and sent in the

Posted Images

5 hours ago, Tyno said:

Wong had to vote against SSM legislation because her party voted against it. 
They weren’t allowed a conscience vote at the time. 
I dunno how she could look in the mirror doing that, but it’s a stretch to say it was reflective of her views. 
Not that Jimbo would ever be selective with the truth to suit his agenda 🤣

She was actually absent for most of the SSM votes back then. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, IronmanFoz said:

You mean a perfect case of not standing up for what she believes in. How could people vote for someone that does that.... yet they do.

 

4 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

In the Labor party, you get told what your views are.  And if you don't vote accordingly, you get the boot

It's a reality of politics in Australia, and in other countries too.

And it happens on both sides of the political divide.

In some ways it's understandable. Most voters don't agree with every policy a party takes to an election or every political decision made by a government or every senate debate. We cast our votes based on the policies and values that best align with our own views and values.

Likewise, politicians join parties that most closely align with their values. They're no different to us, it's unrealistic to expect pollies to agree with every policy and decision their party makes throughout their entire political career. Also, like us, their views on issues may change over time. I'm sure many of us will admit to changing our views on numerous topics, even SSM, over the years. 

So is it hypocritical for a pollie to toe the party line and "not stand up for what they believe in"?

I don't necessarily think so. Some people may vote for their local member based on their personality or values, but it's usual for the majority of the electorate to primarily vote for the party of choice (or their preferred PM). We vote for our representatives to represent not just us, but also to represent the party to which they belong. Consequently, there is a level of expectation (or at lest a hope) among the voting public that an elected member follows the party line.

Who of us hasn't disagreed with some policy or public position of our employer, yet had to support the company's position publicly?

Edited by Paul Every
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, PeterW said:

Penny Wong..? WTF? No way dude - I want proof!! (unless  you are saying MC is actually pro SSM)

Maybe Penny was still holding a candle for Jay Weatherill? :wub:

Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

She was actually absent for most of the SSM votes back then. 

You’re correct Ex. Wong’s voting history is available on the Australian Senate’s website for all to see. She has never voted against the introduction of same sex marriage at any time. At one stage she did vote against holding a non binding plebiscite on the issue and campaigned for a joint sitting of parliament to decide.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/06/2020 at 7:38 AM, SomeTri said:

I was saying something similar the other day but I don't think the statues should be torn down.  They form part of our history and we should be reminded how we got where we are.  However, I think a appropriate plaques should be placed on them defining the real history, not the whitewashed version.

https://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2020/06/09/british-history-according-to-britain/

I think there's merit to the approach taken with Fremantle's Explorers Statue in 1994.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-29/explorers-monument-added-to-not-torn-down-or-vandalised/8853224

Keep the statue and original plaque, but provide further information and context of the history. Everyone benefits.

If it were torn down, an opportunity to properly understand that period of history is lost.

  • Like 5
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Paul Every said:

I think there's merit to the approach taken with Fremantle's Explorers Statue in 1994.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-08-29/explorers-monument-added-to-not-torn-down-or-vandalised/8853224

Keep the statue and original plaque, but provide further information and context of the history. Everyone benefits.

If it were torn down, an opportunity to properly understand that period of history is lost.

I think this is a great statement.

The crazy thing is the people doing the pulling down of statues are doing so with their head in the sand. Paul is right...they are missing a great opportunity to educate about the past.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14/06/2020 at 2:35 PM, PeterW said:

There is a consensus among Egyptologists that the Great Pyramids were not built by slaves. Rather, it was peasants who built the pyramids during flooding, when they could not work in their lands.  Slavery in ancient Egypt - Wikipedia

Didn't they knock off & bury some of the kings/queens slaves with them, so they'd have slaves in the afterlife?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, BarryBevan said:

MP are paid by the tax payer? Rather than party 

Yeah, but the funding to get them elected for another term generally comes from the party.

Unless of course you're a Sports Minister.

  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, BarryBevan said:

So if you were a principled mp on matters such as this you would vote against party lines.

forcing the debate taking on the responsibility rather than being craven

But how far do you take your principles? Do you vote for what you believe in, or what the people who elected you believe in?

And if you are going to vote for what the people want, how do you determine that?

Did they vote for you because they believe in your values? If so then you vote for what you believe in. Or did they vote for you because of the party you are a part of? If that is the case, then you should vote for what the party wants you to vote for.

The latter case suggests a principled MP should toe the party line. 

Edited by Ex-Hasbeen
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

But how far do you take your principles? Do you vote for what you believe in, or what the people who elected you believe in?

And if you are going to vote for what the people want, how do you determine that?

Did they vote for you because they believe in your values? If so then you vote for what you believe in. Or did they vote for you because of the party you are a part of? If that is the case, then you should vote for what the party wants you to vote for.

The latter case suggests a principled MP should toe the party line. 

All true and goes to the heart of a debate about what an MP is. Is it to represent majority view of the electorate? In that case just get the electorate to vote on everything of substance.

Is it it to lead, govern and shape the nation for the good of the Commonwealth? If it is not the latter the we may as well have  a fe more senior APS staff.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Ex-Hasbeen said:

Yeah, but the funding to get them elected for another term generally comes from the party.

Unless of course you're a Sports Minister.

Or run a union

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, Prince said:

Bloody racist !

Seriously though, here is an aboriginal bloke who didn't let the baggage of his races history drag him down, just got on with it & made a go of it.

Not without his controversies it seems, but he was one of 9 kids born in outback WA, so it wasn't a cake walk for him.

Link to post
Share on other sites
41 minutes ago, ComfortablyNumb said:

Seriously though, here is an aboriginal bloke who didn't let the baggage of his races history drag him down, just got on with it & made a go of it.

Just don't mention the lack of Indigenous awareness in the current school curriculum.  You may raise his hackles a bit

Link to post
Share on other sites

That’ll do me. They are now discussing changing the name of coon cheese.  
And I am not kidding  

ffs.....

Edited by Prince
Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Prince said:

That’ll do me. They are now discussing changing the name of coon cheese.  
And I am not kidding  

ffs.....

Won't happen.  Or rather it shouldn't happen as its named after the bloke who patented the process. 

But hold your hat, it gets even worse than that  Theres a craft brewer in WA called Colonial Brewing Company that has been harassed to change its name.

The Link

Stop the world, I want to get off.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, Prince said:

That’ll do me. They are now discussing changing the name of coon cheese.  
And I am not kidding  

ffs.....

Pretty soon, you won't be able to buy this either:

 

niggerbrownshoepolish.jpg

Edited by Paul Every
  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, Prince said:

That’ll do me. They are now discussing changing the name of coon cheese.  
And I am not kidding  

ffs.....

That was Josh Thomas, who has now been outed for comments he made at a round table discussion in 2016 regarding ethnic and indigenous actors (cause he's such a great example of an Australian actor).

Up until about 2007, our main rugby league ground had a grandstand named the ES N***** Brown Stand, named after Edward Stanley "N*****" Brown, who was a famous local sportsperson, community member and businessman.  He was affectionately (and I mean genuinely affectionately) known as N***** Brown.  When the grandstand was pulled down in around 2007 the name was changed.  But still, that's only 13 years ago now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, goughy said:

That was Josh Thomas, who has now been outed for comments he made at a round table discussion in 2016 regarding ethnic and indigenous actors (cause he's such a great example of an Australian actor).

Up until about 2007, our main rugby league ground had a grandstand named the ES N***** Brown Stand, named after Edward Stanley "N*****" Brown, who was a famous local sportsperson, community member and businessman.  He was affectionately (and I mean genuinely affectionately) known as N***** Brown.  When the grandstand was pulled down in around 2007 the name was changed.  But still, that's only 13 years ago now.

A guy named Stephen Hagen was advocating for the removal of Nigger Brown's name from the stand earlier than that.

Hagen unsuccessfully proceeded with the case all the way to the High Court in 2003, and then the United Nation's Committee on the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, which ruled it should be removed.

Alas, the Howard Government argued the UN had no jurisdiction to override the High Court's decision, hence the name remained on the grandstand until it was demolished four years later. It was only then that the Toowoomba Sportsground Trust and the Queensland Government conceded and considered it prudent not to honour Brown by the name he was known.

Even back in 2003, Hagen was mounting legal action against Coon cheese.

Link to post
Share on other sites
45 minutes ago, goughy said:

Up until about 2007, our main rugby league ground had a grandstand named the ES N***** Brown Stand, named after Edward Stanley "N*****" Brown, who was a famous local sportsperson, community member and businessman.  He was affectionately (and I mean genuinely affectionately) known as N***** Brown.  When the grandstand was pulled down in around 2007 the name was changed.  But still, that's only 13 years ago now.

He wasn't aboriginal though. He was anglo-saxon descent. 

Ironically though, in the early 2000's, the UN butted in to try to get the name changed, and as a part of the defence, the deputy chair of ATSIC, who was a local representative, said he had no objection to the name.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Stand by for new names for your favorite caffinated servings as the following names will now be discontinued due to offensive overtones

  • Short Black  
  • Short White
  • Skinny latte
  • Decaff <anything> 
  • Haha 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, Wronggenes said:

I see the reports that FBI have ascertained that the “noose” that caused all the issues in Nascar had been in the unit since August 2019.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎23‎/‎06‎/‎2020 at 4:44 PM, ComfortablyNumb said:

Redskins & Chicos gorrrrrrne - FFS.

But who thought is was a good idea to change the name from Redskins to Rednecks.

  • Haha 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mike Del said:

Don’t know what he did, maybe ask Harpo

Chico lives matter. 
 

Bloody ridiculous.  What’s next ? 

Edited by Prince
Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, IronJimbo said:

 

Why do you think he was worried about the presence of a noose hanging in the workshop?  Real or imagined threat it doesn't take away the reason why it is so significant:

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, thousands of lynchings occurred in the Southern United States, primarily of African Americans in the states of Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas. Between 1890 and 1920, about 3,000 African Americans were killed by lynch mobs in cases where they were alleged perpetrators of crimes. 

And one mistake from one Afro american doesn't change that. But it does make a lot of white males feel better about themselves because it can underpin their denials, or even feign some reverse discrimination outrage.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, PeterW said:

Why do you think he was worried about the presence of a noose hanging in the workshop?  Real or imagined threat it doesn't take away the reason why it is so significant:

In the late 19th and early 20th centuries, thousands of lynchings occurred in the Southern United States, primarily of African Americans in the states of Florida, Georgia, Mississippi, and Texas. Between 1890 and 1920, about 3,000 African Americans were killed by lynch mobs in cases where they were alleged perpetrators of crimes. 

And one mistake from one Afro american doesn't change that. But it does make a lot of white males feel better about themselves because it can underpin their denials, or even feign some reverse discrimination outrage.

Yeah, I'm soz but if you fear a threat because something is reminiscent of something else that was happening a hundred years ago then you have bigger problems than society should have to deal with.  If that was reasonable there would be a lot more concern about COVID-19 because of the Spanish flu.

It's confected outrage.  And yes, if the threat is imagined it absolutely takes away the significance.  If you don't accept that premise then you must accept that the invasion of Iraq because of the thread of WMDs was completely justified.  Anything else is cognitive dissonance.

Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Stikman said:

Yeah, I'm soz but if you fear a threat because something is reminiscent of something else that was happening a hundred years ago then you have bigger problems than society should have to deal with.  If that was reasonable there would be a lot more concern about COVID-19 because of the Spanish flu.

It's confected outrage.  And yes, if the threat is imagined it absolutely takes away the significance.  If you don't accept that premise then you must accept that the invasion of Iraq because of the thread of WMDs was completely justified.  Anything else is cognitive dissonance.

How dare you doubt whether a bit of rope is symbolic of America's historical and ongoing systemic racism?

You awful racist racist

(See how woke I am?  I can use the word 'racist' as both an adjective and a noun)   

Greta-Thunberg-how-dare-you.gif

Link to post
Share on other sites
33 minutes ago, IronJimbo said:

How dare you doubt whether a bit of rope is symbolic of America's historical and ongoing systemic racism?

So you do acknowledge America's historical and ongoing systemic racism, good! :)

Now all's I am saying that you should cut them some slack and, like, gee I don't know, maybe agree that their lives matter..? :)

Edited by PeterW
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless it had some sort of specific reference to African-Americans physically connected to it then a noose is no more representative of lynching than it is of capital punishment, which is still practised in 30-odd states of the U.S. (the only developed western nation to do so).  If held to the same tenuous standard the presence of a gun or knife would be equally representative of unjust black deaths.

Now what I'm picking up is that it was obviously a reference to lynchings because it was in a location where white people who are considered rednecks predominate.  Now if you want to look at links that aren't so tenuous, assuming motivations based on that is pretty racist.  I don't think anyone will, or should, get bent out of shape over that though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, PeterW said:

So you do acknowledge America's historical and ongoing systemic racism, good! :)

Now all's I am saying that you should cut them some slack and, like, gee I don't know, maybe agree that their lives matter..? :)

Of course there is historical racism.  And I'm sure there is ongoing racism.  But I'm not convinced that the ongoing racism is systemic

And I'm not aware of anyone who thinks that black lives don't matter

I am aware of plenty of people who have been suckered in to supporting a group of avowed marxists simply because they have a catchy name though

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

×
×
  • Create New...