Abbott/Liberal Govt Watch

[Jimmy_041]

Maybe we should have a citizens jury on it
Apparently I'm intelligent enough to vote but not smart enough to understand either issue
Propaganda and manipulation are rife in politics these days

[Q.]

If Morrison and anti-SSM campaigners believe they, and those who are against it, have been the recipients of bigotry, while Wong claims, as an SSM advocate she too has, it kind of goes against the line the Libs have been running that we can have a 'a mature and respectful debate', doesn't it?
Why not remove the chance for this sort of issue and have a conscience vote?

The thing is, there's nothing to debate.

[Jimmy_041]

If Morrison and anti-SSM campaigners believe they, and those who are against it, have been the recipients of bigotry, while Wong claims, as an SSM advocate she too has, it kind of goes against the line the Libs have been running that we can have a 'a mature and respectful debate', doesn't it?
Why not remove the chance for this sort of issue and have a conscience vote?

The thing is, there's nothing to debate.

Because no one is allowed an opinion other than the yes people Penny?

[Q.]

It's not a matter for opinions though.

[Jimmy_041]

It's not a matter for opinions though.

Ok Adolf

[tipper]

It's not a matter for opinions though.

Ok Adolf

im sorry, but if you think it is ok to discriminate against people just for who they are, that puts you a hell of a lot closer to being hitler than Q man.

[Gozu]

[Jimmy_041]

It's not a matter for opinions though.

Ok Adolf

im sorry, but if you think it is ok to discriminate against people just for who they are, that puts you a hell of a lot closer to being hitler than Q man.

I don't think its OK to discriminate actually and would vote Yes
But if no-one is allowed to have an opinion then there can't be a vote; can there!
Or are you saying only those who vote yes are entitled to have an opinion and therefore allowed to vote?

Hitler got rid of all opposition so he could do what he wanted
Initially by shutting them up and then by killing them
Only the Nazi's opinion mattered. That puts them much closer to you

[Q.]

it's not really about opinion though, currently a blatant inequality exists for no reason and can easily be fixed. Religion doesn't own marriage, and the Church and State are separate entities. Opinions and debate have no place here.

[tipper]

It's not a matter for opinions though.

Ok Adolf

im sorry, but if you think it is ok to discriminate against people just for who they are, that puts you a hell of a lot closer to being hitler than Q man.

I don't think its OK to discriminate actually and would vote Yes
But if no-one is allowed to have an opinion then there can't be a vote; can there!
Or are you saying only those who vote yes are entitled to have an opinion and therefore allowed to vote?

Hitler got rid of all opposition so he could do what he wanted
Initially by shutting them up and then by killing them
Only the Nazi's opinion mattered. That puts them much closer to you

Please dont tell me you agree on the wankers that claim they are victims because they are against gay marriage? Calling out someone on their bigoted views is not silencing them. It only shuts them up as they have no rational, reasonable counter argument.

Edit, and of course everyone is allowed an opinion. Just as they are allowed to be wrong. This isnt an opinion topic though. Its about doing whats right. Just like giving women and aboriginals the vote. Its putting things the way it should have been all along. Where is the opinion involved?

[Jimmy_041]

No, I'm not saying that but you have certainly formed an opinion about people who oppose it.
Some people have very strong views on this and should be allowed to express those views whether you like them or not.
You say its the right thing to do. There are some equally strong minded people who disagree with you (including some Labor politicians). So your answer is to just shut them down?

I have an opinion on SSM and as far as my family and I are concerned; it should happen (there's 4 votes). Why shouldn't I be allowed to express that opinion?In fact, it should have happened in 2012. Why didn't it? Labor had the numbers back then. What happens if they do another vote and it gets voted down again?
I'm in Pyne's seat. Do you reckon there's any chance in hell he's going to vote the way I (or anybody else in Sturt) want?

To try to make my point in a different way; let's shut down all opposite opinion about a nuclear waste dump and see what happens.
I want to vote about that as well, but, it doesn't look like I will get a say. I get to rely on some conjured up "citizen's jury" of people I probably have never met and I suspect specifically chosen to craft a result. BTW, I have read the Tentative Findings and I'm against it, but it looks like I wont get my opportunity because, apparently, the people on North Tce think none of us are intelligent enough to have an opinion

[tipper]

No, I'm not saying that but you have certainly formed an opinion about people who oppose it.
Some people have very strong views on this and should be allowed to express those views whether you like them or not.
You say its the right thing to do. There are some equally strong minded people who disagree with you (including some Labor politicians). So your answer is to just shut them down?

I have an opinion on SSM and as far as my family and I are concerned; it should happen (there's 4 votes). Why shouldn't I be allowed to express that opinion?In fact, it should have happened in 2012. Why didn't it? Labor had the numbers back then. What happens if they do another vote and it gets voted down again?
I'm in Pyne's seat. Do you reckon there's any chance in hell he's going to vote the way I (or anybody else in Sturt) want?

To try to make my point in a different way; let's shut down all opposite opinion about a nuclear waste dump and see what happens.
I want to vote about that as well, but, it doesn't look like I will get a say. I get to rely on some conjured up "citizen's jury" of people I probably have never met and I suspect specifically chosen to craft a result. BTW, I have read the Tentative Findings and I'm against it, but it looks like I wont get my opportunity because, apparently, the people on North Tce think none of us are intelligent enough to have an opinion

Lol, so them having an opinion that discriminates against a section of the community is ok, but me having an opinion that it makes them hateful bigots is wrong? What if they believed in slavery (which isnt actually outlawed by their precious book by the way) what possible rational, reasonable reason can anyone have to oppose it? Why does the government have to provide a mouthpiece for nonsense? Dont they waste enough money?

So what if some people have some very strong racist views? Do we all need to sit here and allow them to spew their bigotry cos its their opinion? Its the same thing. I dont want to listen to anyones opinion when that opinion is to discriminate against a group of our society.

And where have i said shut them down? Being against a plebiscite isnt shutting anything down, it is taking away a government sponsored platform for the haters. They can still bang on about it in their churches and bible studies. Thankfully the sane amongst us wont have to hear it. Why should the government provide a public platform for them to spout their bullshit?

That is the issue. A plebiscite isnt even binding. You could have 90% of the population vote for it and the pollies dont even have to do anything about it. Its a complete waste of time and money, aside from providing a soapbox to the bigots. That alone should put a stop to it.

And for the record, im not against people having religeous beliefs. People can believe in whatever flavour of sky fairy they choose. What i am against is those same people forcing others to live by their beliefs. What right do they have to force others to conform to their thinking? You were the one Jimmy that referenced the nazis. Does that fit their ideology?

[tipper]

And i love how you try to conflate a nuclear waste dump with ssm. How are the two issues even remotely related? Clutching at straws jim

[Jimmy_041]

And i love how you try to conflate a nuclear waste dump with ssm. How are the two issues even remotely related? Clutching at straws jim

Actually it is related because the people are given the opportunity to say what they want.
My side of the discussion is not whether SSM or the dump is right or wrong but the best way to fix it, and fix it for good so there can be no argument anymore. Swap the nuclear dump for anything else that will affect us for the next million years and my comments would be the same.

The point is we elect people like Pyne (and whoever in State) who do not represent what I think. They vote how they want regardless of what we think.
I dont think religion has any place in the discussion about SSM. He thinks its all about religion. You couldn't get more opposed views
Allowing it to be voted in Parliament does not reflect what people actually want - it is what either they want or what their party wants
By plebiscite, the government are told what they people want. It is actually very powerful because they cant ignore it.
What the voters want is the only thing these people understand

Tell me; what happens if it gets voted down in Parliament like it did in 2012 - what next?

[Dogwatcher]

You're putting together a very persuasive argument, Jim.

[Grenville]

It's not a matter for opinions though.

Ok Adolf

Quote Godwin's Law.

[Gozu]

Finally the final week of the campaign!

[Jimmy_041]

Finally the final week of the campaign!

We can agree on that.
I'm not answering the home phone or No Caller ID on mobile at the moment
The fact Pyne says he loves campaigning says it all
He loves being an annoying little $hit

[Q.]

Hung parliament. Again.

[Psyber]

This seems to me to be a reasonable and balanced position:

https://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/319 ... lebiscite/

Campaigning in Tasmania, Mr Turnbull signalled MPs would still have a conscience vote when asked whether Cabinet solidarity would bound front benchers to support same sex marriage even if it went against their personal views.

Mr Turnbull said the “tradition” in the Liberal Party was for a conscience vote but he expected that opponents such as Treasurer Scott Morrison would “abide” by the wishes of the Australian people.

“I have no doubt that if the plebiscite is carried, as I believe it will be, that you will see an overwhelming majority of MPs and senators voting for it,” he said.