Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Australia  > Political mud-slinging      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 Sunny_Coaster
Joined: 9/3/2011
Msg: 47
Political mud-slinging Page 3 of 4    (1, 2, 3, 4)
It's becoming more like a presedential election every time though and that's the thing. People voted for Campbell Newman, if they knew 3/4 of his members are actually nationals it would have been different.

If people knew that Kevin Rudd was from the Labor right I doubt he would have polled so well across the board either.

People will vote for Tony Abbott regardless of who the Liberal party preselects as candidates come the next election.

That is not a good thing either, I've actually highlighted the fact that the federal Labor government is getting the job done despite the position they've been put in. Federally we are in a position that is envied by many other nations and yet because the people have decided Tony Abbott will be our next president that's exactly what is going to happen.

If the media would actually report things as they are you would see exactly how much time and money is being wasted by the Abbott Coalition on filibustering policy for the sake of it. You would see that legislation is actually passing the floor and instead we get crap like 3 word jingos for the small minded majority.

Enjoy your delicious ironing of what Australia actually thinks should be done with "boat people"



15% of Australians prefer the option of sending the boats back out to sea without
assessment of asylum seeker claims (support for this option may vary if the option is put
less strongly / more euphemistically);

Assessment in Australia is preferred by a ratio of almost two to one – 53% chose ‘allowed
to land in Australia to be assessed’ compared to 28% for ‘sent to another country to
be assessed’.

Among those opting for assessment (rather than sending the boats back) an almost two-
thirds majority (64%) want asylum seekers held in detention while 32% want them to live in
the community. This equates to 52% support among all Australians for detention (64%
of the 81% choosing an ‘assessment’ option is 52%) and 26% support for living in the
community (32% of the 81% choosing an ‘assessment’ option is 26%) with 19%
unknown (they were not asked as a consequence of responses to earlier questions).

Among those choosing one of the two assessment options, 60% support allowing genuine
refugees to stay in Australia permanently. This equates to 49% support among all
Australians for permanent settlement (60% of the 81% choosing an ‘assessment’ option
is 49%). Support for temporary settlement of refugees was 29% of all Australians.
Note that 19% were not asked.

40% of those supporting detention opposed the detention of asylum seekers under 18
years of age (this equates to 21% of all Australians). Add to this the 32% (of those
choosing an assessment option) allowing asylum seekers to live in the community (equal to
26% of all Australians) and this suggests that 47% of all Australians oppose the
detention of asylum seekers under the age of 18, while 29% support such detention.
Note that the remainder, 24%, could not be inferred and were not asked.


This is from a Nielsen Poll conducted last August on 1400 people. The majority of people are that indoctrinated by Rupert's news however that they haven't got a clue about what is really going on.
 Sunny_Coaster
Joined: 9/3/2011
Msg: 48
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/26/2012 2:50:50 AM
I wasn't talking about the Queensland elections actually, and for the record Tony Abbott is dumber. If you don't believe he's not Rupert's puppet then you really are in bed with the Lib/Nats.

Go back to page 1, do as I said, inform yourself of whats going on, you'll soon realise its the filibusters vs. the government.


Get the facts!


There you go a 3 word jingo you should be able to understand. If that's too hard don't waste my time, just vote informal and don't muddy up the waters for those of us who actually do care.
 Hilly02
Joined: 10/7/2011
Msg: 49
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/26/2012 3:47:40 AM

If that's too hard don't waste my time, just vote informal and don't muddy up the waters for those of us who actually do care.

So just because someone doesn't agree with your political views, they should shut up and not vote?
Thats about the most self indulgent, egocentric thing I have ever heard and I have heard some sh1t in my time.
I happen to think your political views are crap......does that mean you should shut up and vote informal because you don't agree with me?.
Grow up........geez it's no wonder I hate politics lol
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 50
view profile
History
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/26/2012 4:07:09 AM
Voting informal doesn't mean you don't care. Not caring means you vote for whoever your friends and family tell you to vote for, or who you like the look of. Informal can mean you care so much you think the system itself needs such a major overhaul that the only way to make progress is to stop supporting the status quo.
 HappyRocker
Joined: 8/13/2011
Msg: 51
view profile
History
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/26/2012 7:19:10 AM
Posted By: Sunny_Coaster on 3/26/2012 1050 AM
Go back to page 1, do as I said, inform yourself of whats going on, you'll soon realise its the filibusters vs. the government.

Or antiquated union organisations led by old men that have influence far past their elected representation.



Get the facts!

I think you mean "Get my opinion or I'll start shouting at you!"
I am as aprehensive of people like you running the country (and the Labor Party has more than its fair share) as I am that people like Tony Abbott will be in charge. Your personality and methods of bullying (it's not debate or even arguement) are the same.



There you go a 3 word jingo you should be able to understand. If that's too hard don't waste my time, just vote informal and don't muddy up the waters for those of us who actually do care.

This statement actually sounds like a John Howardism. John Howard wanted to remove compulsory voting. He knew that working Australians would probably forget to vote if it didn't cost them a hundred bucks. That would leave his upper end of town most of the representation. (See the pre- Hurricane Katrina USA voting trends when poor, Hispanic and Afro-American voters realised that they were so disenfranchised that the Washington Government was going to let their people drown in New Orleans)

Your arguements and posts so far show that you're not a democrat or even a republican. You're not a socialist or even a communist. You're a fascist just like many before you who want their own political way at the expense of anyone else.
 MrsNaamah
Joined: 11/8/2011
Msg: 52
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/26/2012 4:39:28 PM
Maybe it’s just me, but some of the stuff people out there are saying Labor did wrong…. well it seems an awful lot like people were really jacked off with Labor for acting too much like Liberals. So they taught Labor a lesson… by…errm… voting in the actual Liberals. A bit like deciding that the best way to teach someone to stop hitting you is to beat yourself up.

Not that I’m sticking up for Labor. I hold both parties in equally low esteem.

I’ve seen a bit of mention around the place of how various pollies showed empathy, and helped, during the floods etc…but I think that’s pretty expected isn’t it? They’d be pretty inhumane if they didn’t, so I don’t know why the fact they did would be seen as any great achievement on their part. However I did think Anna Bligh’s concession speech on Saturday night was indeed gracious, dignified… she showed some class. Shame there wasn’t more of those qualities on display during the not-so-cheap-but-very- nasty campaign itself. I was very impressed by the acknowledgement she gave that her decision to sell assets was clearly not supported by the public and she took responsibility for that. Too little too late of course, but at least acknowledged. …I couldn’t bear to watch Newman’s speech. (Hello NEWMAN <- Seinfeld) I’d just eaten, and too much egotistical gloating tends to turn my stomach. Although I’ve read commentary that it was surprisingly modest.

There are a share of LNP voters who are now popping up around the place to make sneering comments about parties that didn’t win…there is nothing quite so tiresome as a sore winner. But interestingly, there are a fair share of those who voted for LNP who don’t actually feel as if they have had a win…cos they were merely voting for the least worst of two options in their mind. Could this be the unhappiest election outcome ever?

Katter…two seats. Interesting. The one good thing about Katter in my view (trying to find the positives here) is at least he is against coal seam gas mining until it’s been properly investigated and found to be environmentally safe. Whatever other redneck attitudes he may possess, and irrespective of his involvement in the past that caused the rights of farmers to be eroded in favour of mining companies in the first place, I do agree with him on that. I have no idea how much he will be able to do about it though. (I also agreed with the verbal backhand he gave the media on Saturday night for only reporting on government issues when they can sensationalise things, and ignoring the less dramatic but nonetheless important issues)

The Greens…not a one got up. Didn’t think we were there yet, but I’m still disappointed for them. I thought they had the most good to offer Queensland at this point in time. But in respect to the discussion about people voting on image, well I suspect they have an image problem. Perhaps partly due to persistent stereotyping which, like every other form of stereotyping, can take a while to overcome. So no matter how hair-free they might keep their legs these days, or how infrequently they now wear paisley, they’ll always be nothing more than a bunch of hair-legged hippies in the minds of some. Could it be that hairy legs are just that much harder to forgive than all of the combined breaking of election promises, lying and corruption by the other parties? Also there seems to be very little awareness of their actual policies causing them to be perceived as say, wanting to shut down industry, rather than being the party most likely to open the way to innovative and ultimately less destructive industries that the mainstream parties block. But another (unavoidable) part is that they seek to represent uncomfortable truths, to which antagonistic denialism is inevitably going to be one of the more comfortable reactions…and certainly has been known to seal the fate of many messengers. I guess it’s pretty normal that most of us will worry about matters of immediate self-interest, which is, and always will be, easier than accepting compromises or limitations now for the sake of the future. That in itself will inevitably ensure them only minority support (I think they average between 12%-15% ? ), but doesn’t necessarily mean they are getting it wrong… plenty of examples in history where a much-scorned minority turned out to be, embarrassingly, bang on the money. Maybe oneday…when we all start to feel a more immediate pain over decimated fish populations, farming land ravaged from mining, water aquifiers rendered out of action for 300 years, a dead reef, trashed natural areas that clean the air etc etc, more than we feel the pain of say, the cost of car rego …when we realise our kids can’t eat, drink and breathe money…maybe that’s when we’ll perhaps consider the Greens.

btw I was very interested to read the aside discussion back there ^^ somewhere about bringing back the upper house. I had read the Greens wanted to do so, but haven’t yet formed an opinion either way about that. It’s something I need to inform myself more about, and intend to, so any other comments (pros and cons) you guys have on that would be of some interest to read (preferably, if possible, minus the pomposity about which of you is the most all-knowing about politics, and minus the bigotry towards people who live in different states or regions of the state to where you are.)

Anyway, done and dusted for us for a few years now, and, I guess, majority rules. Even though the end result leaves a significant number of Queenslanders who are now not at all happy with their elected representation. I’m one of them. But yep, that’s democracy…well…. it’s democracy as we know it, Jim. That doesn’t mean democracy is being offered to us in its best form. Harking back to what Gingerosity said previously…


We have citizens jury duty. Why not citizens assembly duty? Think us normal people might be able to see beyond 3 years? Can't be any worse than the corrupt pollies with vested interests, factions, lobbyists, short term populism, mass media manipulation... in fact its no wonder they don't have any time left to actually do anything for the good of the country!
and
The whole concept of professional 'representatives' appears so flawed to me that I would much rather have a random rotation system drawing on citizens from all walks of life, something along the lines of jury duty.

Or even better, abolish representation. With the internet it would be a simple matter for the entire population to be able to vote on every policy, rather than just one vote every three years.


…I so agree with your thinking there, especially the last suggestion. What a shame our notion of democracy doesn’t extend to being able to cast our vote on issues, instead of parties. The current system feels like being forced to buy the variety pack of biscuits, even though you know full well you only like 3 of the 6 varieties contained in it. How nice would it be to have no political parties, only individuals (could still be a person of good standing and intellect elected by their constituents though, cos you wouldn’t want to get stuck with some kind of incoherent incompetent representing your region’s perspective)…them using their own abilities to represent the views of their voters rather than representing the views of their party (flavoured by self-interest in power as they are)…consulting the voting public on each issue rather than towing a party line and disempowering their voters in the process…no more cult mentality, branding, colours…no more perception of a choice of two big ‘uns or potentially have your vote feel wasted because you tried to get a little ‘un through. It would force pollies to keep us better informed and keep them accountable for their whole term. And Hilly would like politics again!

Gingerosity for Premier! <-- except not, because there wouldn’t be one. Never mind…the greater honour in Queensland might well be getting a statue of your good self at Suncorp Stadium.
 greyingred
Joined: 6/12/2008
Msg: 53
view profile
History
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/26/2012 8:19:48 PM
was at the perth writers festival this year and Big Ideas filmed a very interesting conversation about the bullying tactics of The Australian newspaper and subsequent affiliated media... (the programme was aired last week ABC) so whilst I am amused at




my god "Rupert's puppet" ?? a conspiricy, out comes the tin foil hat and giggles


only a fool would think that the power mongers of both politics and media kept professional distance and/or followed queensbury rules. Many academics with opposing views to right wing Murdoch have been, to use the programme's term "bullied" by his newspaper, some quite mercilessly. So too with politics and politicians. There is no such thing as objective reporting especially nowadays.

ps. Tony Abbot is a nutter, plain and simple, sincerely hoping we never have to endure him as PM, he has no humanity....much like Murdoch.
 Hilly02
Joined: 10/7/2011
Msg: 54
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/27/2012 12:13:48 AM
the media can spin things only so far.. they cant say Rob Kattter is set to start a space program if it wern't so

Ya serious Caves?.
Clive palmer claimed the Greens were being funded by the CIA and conspiring against Australia's Resources industry in the lead up to the election.....After the election he stated the he did not believe this was now the case, but was glad he had said it as it took the focus off some of the negative aspects of the LNP.
The public will believe almost anything they are told and the big parties seem to have no qualms about making up lies to further their corrupt causes.
It makes for interesting reading!
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/clive-palmer-says-cia-claims-served-purpose-in-helping-campbell-newmans-campaign/story-fn59niix-1226310576691
 internetdatinglol
Joined: 5/17/2007
Msg: 55
view profile
History
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/27/2012 3:35:10 AM
Clive Palmer has really shown his true colours. Up until that ridiculous conspiracy theory nonsense he spouted I just thought he was a fat, politically -inclined billionaire. Now I know that he's a fat, politically-inclined billionaire who also happens to he a complete idiot.

Don't believe him when he claims that he brought up that CIA-Greens connection nonsense as a distraction he didn't really believe. He believed it alright, it's only when everyone said he was a retard for believing it that he said "um... that was my plan all along"!

He's a waste of a large amount of space. I wish he could suck some logic and decorum into orbit around him.
 internetdatinglol
Joined: 5/17/2007
Msg: 56
view profile
History
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/27/2012 5:54:49 PM
Rupert Murdoch is not Abbott's puppetmaster, true.

That said, his company News Ltd is Abbott's cheerleader. Why? Abbott's brand of snivelling populism sells newspapers. Considered journalism is a dinosaur now, it's very hard to find and within the decade I suspect it'll be gone. People prefer to be frightened by the news they read today... they don't want to be informed.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 57
view profile
History
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/28/2012 1:23:35 AM

the media can only spin things so far..the media cant make policys up for govt. is what I am on about....


If someone in the government thought it might be a good idea to double the fuel excise to pay for something important, what stories would the media run? Would there be a balanced examination of the pros and cons of the proposal? What if there was a proposal to process asylum seeker applications in days instead of years? Would there be a considered and thoughtful media reaction to that idea? Of course not. So it isn't even considered for party policy.

Thought doesn't sell - conflict does. The mere threat of the media blowing everything out of proportion is enough to prevent a lot of innovation, or public discussion of potentially controversial ideas. Mass media reinforces conservatism and has a major influence on career politicians. They may not make policies up for the government, but they do enforce many no-go zones.
 Sunny_Coaster
Joined: 9/3/2011
Msg: 58
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/29/2012 4:14:48 PM
/\/\/\

This... and if you don't think it's the medias message that sells policies in this country? Well... that's ok and your entitled to believe otherwise

The Reindhart/Murdoch media saturation would tell a different story however. I've got to ask, how many of you actually bother to get your news from an independent source and form your own opinion?
 qldblue
Joined: 2/4/2009
Msg: 59
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/30/2012 12:55:09 AM
In my area we had the coverage of the Queensland elections in our paper but the coverage from other printed media and the electronic media covered the issues very much the same.

Murdoch might be very powerfull in his own controlled section of the media but he doesn't control all the sources of the media.
 Sunny_Coaster
Joined: 9/3/2011
Msg: 60
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/30/2012 3:58:10 AM
7,9,10 and pretty much every paper in australia is either Murdoch or Rinedheart...
 qldblue
Joined: 2/4/2009
Msg: 61
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/30/2012 4:47:44 AM
7 is Kerry Stokes and then we have ABC and SBS.

But wait there is more, we have the news service on Bigpond, Yahoo, and several more avenues for the use by people.
 internetdatinglol
Joined: 5/17/2007
Msg: 62
view profile
History
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/30/2012 7:46:01 AM
I just use Google News. Definitely ignore the Courier Mail and the Daily Telegraph though.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 63
view profile
History
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/30/2012 6:03:45 PM
Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera.
 HappyRocker
Joined: 8/13/2011
Msg: 64
view profile
History
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 3/31/2012 1:36:46 PM
It would be niaive to expect the media to be entirely unbiased in their reporting. After all if someone's career prospects depend on a billionaire's approval ... however the ABC TVand radio are often biased against the conservatives. They should. Every time the conservatives get into power they cut ABC funding.

But the real problem that Australia has (nationwide and statewide) is that politicians of both sides are totally cynical in their view of the electorate. I think this is bought about by two fctors -
a. The employment of advisors that have no real world experience.
b. Lack of understanding of the principles of the Westminster system of government.

This attitude has percolated through to the Public Services as well.

Under Westminster you can't tax one group of people (and believe me I have little sympathy for mining billionaires and use that money or even parts of that money to bolster your vote by giving itto another section of the community. That could be defined as corruption under Westminster. That behaviour is quite acceptable under fascism but under fascism the flow of money would probably go the other way.

Under Westminster the government executive CAN tax a group of people who are causing harm to the environmment (or health, or any other issue that effects to the detriment any part of the community) and use that tax revenue to lessen the detrimental effects.

So under Westminster a government can tax companies that are making profit selling product that puts greenhouse gases into the envirironment (Under Westminster car manufactureres should be taxed as well). Those funds would have to go into removing or reducing the effects of greenhouse gases or research and developement into reducing the effects.

The Australian people have been briught up under the Westminster form of government and although they don't seem to be able to articulate why they are feeling uneasy, they are removing governments because they are uneasy at the policies they are witnessing.
 MrsNaamah
Joined: 11/8/2011
Msg: 65
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 4/1/2012 3:00:43 PM

I just use Google News.



I watch "behind the news" ABC there too young to be corrupt !!



Reuters, BBC, Al Jazeera.


Those all sound great, but I learn all I need to know about the goings-on in the world from DC Comics. I avoid Marvel because I don't like that green guy.
 TheJokerau
Joined: 1/1/2012
Msg: 66
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 4/16/2012 8:27:43 PM
Main parties: Centre Left/Socialists, Social Democrats or Moderates.
Centre-Right are the Conservatives, Christian Democrats and Liberals.

Minor parties: Far left represented by Environmentalists and Communists.
Far right represented by the Nationalists.

In Australia the far left is represented by the Greens.
The far right is represented by the National Party.

The Australian Democrats were the only Central party that was neither biased towards Liberal or Labor. They did a good job at keeping both Liberal and Labor accountable.
 internetdatinglol
Joined: 5/17/2007
Msg: 67
view profile
History
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 4/19/2012 11:09:02 PM
Actually a lot of the Nationals' economic policies are to the left of Labor. They are classed as agrarian socialists by political scientists. That said, they have a broadly conservative outlook the rest of the time so they align with the Liberals federally (where their economic views are widely ignored). They're not "far right" really, just conservatives with crackpot country economics. A dying breed it's safe to say.

As for the Democrats it is true that they started out as being broadly centrist but with time they became left-leaning and voted with Labor and The Greens towards the end of their representation in the Senate. This is why they collapsed, their base moved to The Greens.

On top of that, The Greens are left-wing in the broad sense, but the "far"-left are represented in Australia (on the ballot paper anyway) by the Socialist Alliance. Not that anyone cares!
 Jewel_Of_Denial
Joined: 8/9/2011
Msg: 68
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 7/26/2012 2:56:21 AM
the beauty of democracy is that we all get the governments that we deserve.
not happy?
then start your own political movement
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 69
view profile
History
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 7/26/2012 3:07:49 AM
the beauty of corporatocracy is that we all get the governments that benefit a tiny minority.
not happy?
then buy some lobbyists in Canberra.
 Hilly02
Joined: 10/7/2011
Msg: 70
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 7/26/2012 3:10:06 AM
I tried to buy Clive Palmer but it was pay by the kilo so I was stuffed.
 gingerosity
Joined: 12/10/2011
Msg: 71
view profile
History
Political mud-slinging
Posted: 7/26/2012 3:13:56 AM

pay by the kilo


Sounds very venetian.
Show ALL Forums  > Australia  > Political mud-slinging