SA Footy

Serious question.

Most political parties have their good and bad people and policies.

The point of this post is to ask conservative supporters whether some elements of the Liberal Party worry you with their attitudes.

Does Andrew Wilkie have a point, or do you dismiss it totally?

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/44584.html

YES.............The events in the seat of Lindsay proved that forever 2 days before the 07 election.

redden whites wrote:YES.............The events in the seat of Lindsay proved that forever 2 days before the 07 election.

Racism is simply a generalisation, an assumption without evidence that all members of a particular group hold the same flaws as any individual in that group. Your statement above is just as biggotted. Congratulations.

Political parties, like other groups, tend to contain people with a wide range of views.
How much of this range is expressed openly depends on the liberality and tolerance within the group, and their respect for freedom of opinion and speech.
In my view.the Liberal Party tends to be more tolerant of divergent opinion than say the ALP which is much more committed to an apparent united position in the eyes of the voters.
[ At least immediately before elections. ]

Whether or not a statement is "Racist" depends on its content and intent, and on whether what is said is true.
It is easy for opponents of any idea to bandy about such terms to divert focus from the idea that is being expressed, and bury any serious consideration of it in the resulting controversy.
Accusations of "Blasphemy" used to work much the same way accusations of "Racism" do now..

That said I am sure there would be some genuine "racists" hidden in the Liberal Party, and within other political parties and groups too.
Political parties do attract people who want to exercise power because they have an agenda to push.
That's why I sometimes argue, from the Devil's Advocate" position I like to take, that we would be better served in government if anyone who actually wanted to be an MP were banned from becoming one.

Racists, wherever they are, do bother me, but suppressing the expression of ideas and opinion bothers me more.
Expressed opinions can be tolerated and ignored, suppressing ideas and opinions is dangerous to democracy.

Although most would agree with a fair bit of that motherhood statement, Psyber, I think you're glossing over the specifics of what Wilkie is saying as it applies to the current Liberal Party.

Does what Bernardi and Morrison are saying bother you as a 'moderate' Liberal?

redandblack wrote:Although most would agree with a fair bit of that motherhood statement, Psyber, I think you're glossing over the specifics of what Wilkie is saying as it applies to the current Liberal Party.
Does what Bernardi and Morrison are saying bother you as a 'moderate' Liberal?

Assuming they are being quoted accurately, that they said it doesn't bother me.
I am not sure if I agree with them completely, as I don't have the details I would need to form and opinion.

I do have some reservations about how we handled those funeral arrangements if we don't do the same for poor Australian citizens in similar circumstances.
That needs to be thought about. I don't have the details and costings of the event, or know what it would cost to extend the same consideration to others.
Putting it up for debate is fair enough in my view, but it could have been done later and not in the middle of the immediate mourning.

I have no problem with the provision of Halal food if those who want it, if they bear the costs, and the techniques comply with our animal welfare and health laws.
I would object to our entire nation being required to conform to Halal requirements, without considering those issues, just to please a minority whose requirement is based only on religion.
[And I'd feel the same if it were the Christian religion rather than Islam.]

Psyber, why would you even suggest we might all have to eat Halal meat?

For someone who likes detail, it's amazing you rarely have the detail when it doesn't suit you

what they said was not particularly remarkable. Certainly not in the context of debate in a mature, open democracy.

As Pysber alluded to, some, for their own purposes, adopt a very shrill and intolerant attitude towards views inconsistent with their own.
Sometimes they come from very weak positions in terms of substantive arguements and thought.
This tendency to shut down debate and attribute the basest of motivations to your opponents is a disturbing feature of modern day politics in some cases.

That being said politics is full and probably has always been full of posturing, attention seeking, and exagerrated claims.

redandblack wrote:Psyber, why would you even suggest we might all have to eat Halal meat?
For someone who likes detail, it's amazing you rarely have the detail when it doesn't suit you

I said "I would object.." thinking that clearly implied the idea of "if that happened".
I wasn't thinking or saying that it would happen, inevitably, but considering the idea that at some future time it might seem simpler and cheaper to an administration to have one process instead of more than one to keep track of.

I didn't think to review it for other possible interpretations because I was a bit short of time to get ready to go out to lunch with some old school friends today.

It is a ridiculous statement, Psyber, but fits in nicely with the Liberal dogwhistling tactic.

No, its does not bother me as I know its a media beat up again.....and if it is Im sure both sides are guilty.

redandblack wrote:It is a ridiculous statement, Psyber, but fits in nicely with the Liberal dogwhistling tactic.

You are just sticking to your recently denied leftist slant again, and deriding whatever you don't agree with with emotive terms like "dogwhistling and "motherhood".

Wilkie is spot on ... well said.

Psyber wrote:

redandblack wrote:It is a ridiculous statement, Psyber, but fits in nicely with the Liberal dogwhistling tactic.

You are just sticking to your recently denied leftist slant again, and deriding whatever you don't agree with with emotive terms like "dogwhistling and "motherhood".

Psyber, you know that no Australian Government would think of making exclusive halal meat consumption for even a second, so either you made a silly statement or a deliberate one.

Your record suggests you don't lightly make silly statements, so I presumed it was deliberate.

If it was, then it is exactly what I said.

As for my 'recently denied leftist slant', once again you are verballing me.

I have never denied being leftist. I just proved to you, in the absence of any actual evidence from you after repeated requests, that I wasn't a "seriously committed socialist".

I wish you would be either more accurate or more honest.

PS: Motherhood and dogwhistling are mainstream political terms nowadays.

Surprising that a former member of Australian Intelligence in Andrew Wilkie is unaware of the distinction between a race and a religion. Wilkie is no fan of the Howard government due to his treatment (or at least how he perceives it) when he worked as an intelligence officer. His comments against the Liberal party need to be taken with a grain of salt.

Why?

redandblack wrote: Psyber, you know that no Australian Government would think of making exclusive halal meat consumption for even a second, so either you made a silly statement or a deliberate one.

I don't really know that - they have done some really odd things for PC's sake from my point of view and I don't know how far that insanity may extend in future.
As I said, one system would be easier to administrate - I was not suggesting it was currently intended just that it may become an issue in time for administrative convenience.
However, the health and animal welfare issue is more important - this one is just easier to dispute about..

redandblack wrote: I have never denied being leftist. I just proved to you, in the absence of any actual evidence from you after repeated requests, that I wasn't a "seriously committed socialist".

Do you mean there is a fine difference of degree that I find difficult to detect?
I admit it depends on where you are looking from - those inside a group see more graduations than those outside - just as occurred in class hierarchy in the past.

redandblack wrote: PS: Motherhood and dogwhistling are mainstream political terms nowadays.

Not in any of the circles I mix in.

Apropos selecting candidates:
I've been involved in Liberal Party pre-selection in seats where I've been a member and can assure you the local membership tends to take unkindly to attempts by outsiders to intervene or pressure.
There is a certain pride in independence from factional power brokers, and any such attempt may well backfire..
Even attempts at persuasion would have to be gentle and subtle so as not to offend the local members who do the voting on who gets selected as candidate.
The right support may carry some weight, but that is limited.

redandblack wrote:Why?

Because he may have an agenda against the Liberal party for personal reasons.

So we can also discount what Tony Abbott says, because he has an agenda against the Labor Party?

How about debating his argument, rather than his supposed motives.

He makes a lot of sense.

Psyber, I wish you luck untangling yourself from the twisted convolutions of your semantical argument.

I also congratulate you on not actually knowing that no Governement will make us eat halal meat. Following that logic, I will ignore any prediction or statement you ever make about future political events.

You also see no difference between someone who has a leftist slant and a seriously committed socialist. It's amazing that youi can broadly generalise when it suits you, but also go into extreme detail when it doesn't. I would have thought you're best served giving up on that one after the shellacking you took when you couldn't support that argument last time.

Now, to another issue.

You aren't happy that I use 'emotive' language. Your examples of emotive language include the everyday political words 'motherhood statement' and 'dogwhistling', words that can be read any day of the week in political reports.

I note, however, in the GD thread, that you're quite happy to use the term 'do-gooder' to describe someone you disagree with.

Mate, considering your double-standards, you're getting very thin-skinned