Oz Federal Election 2013 - Discussion and Comments

[drsmithy]

I don't really care that much about importing cheap labour. It's not as severe a problem as vulnerable people dying in their hundreds, is it?

And of course the obvious solution to prevent that is to tow the boats they're arriving in back out to sea. What could go wrong ?

Like most aspects of "compassionate conservatism", I find the thought process that leads to the conclusion the best way to discourage desperate refugees is to make the conditions they're walking into even more inhumane than the ones they're fleeing, equal parts horrifying and fascinating. It's like the logic that concludes the best way to get people into work is to threaten them with starvation and homelessness.

 

[drron]

And of course the obvious solution to prevent that is to tow the boats they're arriving in back out to sea. What could go wrong ?

Like most aspects of "compassionate conservatism", I find the thought process that leads to the conclusion the best way to discourage desperate refugees is to make the conditions they're walking into even more inhumane than the ones they're fleeing, equal parts horrifying and fascinating. It's like the logic that concludes the best way to get people into work is to threaten them with starvation and homelessness.

Guess the ABC is not your favourite for listening-
AM - Retired vice admiral says boats can be turned back 05/07/2013

TONY EASTLEY: Why did the practice stop when it did?

CHIRS RITCHIE: No more boats came.

TONY EASTLEY: None at all?

CHIRS RITCHIE: None at all. None at all.

 

[Skyring]

And of course the obvious solution to prevent that is to tow the boats they're arriving in back out to sea. What could go wrong ?

Like most aspects of "compassionate conservatism", I find the thought process that leads to the conclusion the best way to discourage desperate refugees is to make the conditions they're walking into even more inhumane than the ones they're fleeing, equal parts horrifying and fascinating. It's like the logic that concludes the best way to get people into work is to threaten them with starvation and homelessness.

Howard's solution wasn't to tow the boats out to sea.

Nor was it to make the conditions more inhumane than the ones they were supposedly fleeing. Nor worse than their conditions in Malaysia and Indonesia.

Like the two people surprised by a tiger, one sees the other putting on running shoes and sneers, "Think you're going to outrun a tiger?"

"No, I'm going to outrun you."

We didn't become cruel. We just became a more difficult target than other destinations for unauthorised arrivals.

 

[Skyring]

You're still missing the point. The HSU may very well have authorised him to spend the money as he did. Abbott had no such authority. That's the key difference. Well beside HSU funds not being public money.

Of course Abbott had the authority to spend money on travel. Don't be wet.

The key difference, as ever, is the behaviour. When challenged as to the propriety, Abbott repaid the money fair and square.

Thomson tried to pretend he didn't spend money on prostitutes. He claimed he was set up. He lied.

Now, we all make mistakes. If we didn't we wouldn't be human. The person who accepts and admits their mistake is wiser than the person who blames someone else.

Thomson not only wasted union funds on prostitutes, he tried to frame someone who didn't.

And Gillard backed him all the way until the stench got too foul. Just how far are you going to back Craig Thomson?

 

[Skyring]

twice? You give Abbott too much credit. Gillard was was an own goal, booted by Rudd.

And Rudd was another own goal, booted by Gillard, presumably.

Not a team with its eye on the ball. They are kicking each other, you say.

 

[Skyring]

Only a week ago you were doubting suggestions that the LIBS will be fighting poor polling and the start of intense media focus on leadership. I'm pretty comfortable all of this will continue to grow and the tension will bubble along and rise over the coming weeks/months.

Democracy and a media with nothing better to do is a deadly mix.

If you think I ever claimed Rudd wouldn't see a lift in the polls, you must be thinking someone else. Nor have I ever suggested Turnbull was challenging anybody, or that the media had anything to go on. I referred back to my own experience, where I noted that those who made stories up quickly found that their credibility diminished.

What is happening now is that we are back to mid 2010, with Rudd a little way behind Abbott in the polls and an election due soon. The difference is that Abbott has led his team well over the intervening period and Rudd has demonstrated that he couldn't get enough support in his own party until they were facing certain annihilation.

 

[medhead]

And Rudd was another own goal, booted by Gillard, presumably.

Not a team with its eye on the ball. They are kicking each other, you say.

What an absolutely ludicrous presumption. I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you have difficulty with things like numbers and order and such. So here is the simple version. Once is not twice. Hopefully you can understand that. Still probably more likely that you'll jump to another false conclusion.

Of course Abbott had the authority to spend money on travel. Don't be wet.

The key difference, as ever, is the behaviour. When challenged as to the propriety, Abbott repaid the money fair and square.

Thomson tried to pretend he didn't spend money on prostitutes. He claimed he was set up. He lied.

Now, we all make mistakes. If we didn't we wouldn't be human. The person who accepts and admits their mistake is wiser than the person who blames someone else.

Thomson not only wasted union funds on prostitutes, he tried to frame someone who didn't.

And Gillard backed him all the way until the stench got too foul. Just how far are you going to back Craig Thomson?

Who's being wet. It's your analogy, if you don't understand it you shouldn't use it. For a start I did not say Abbott is not authorised to spend money on travel. I wrote he was not authorise to spend public money "as he did". As you stated he was called for using publicly provided transport to fund promotion of his private activities. No politician is authorised to use the taxpayer's money to fund private activities. You the one being wet If you think Abbott repaid money that he spent legitimately.

There is the fundamental difference Thomson's situation involves the use of private money. I'm not defending anyone, another false presumption on your part. Simply pointing out the failure of your rabid attack. All private organisations are entitled to use their money in whatever way they wish. (Within the confines of the law)

Clearly you're too blinded by ideology to understand such a simple concept.

On that note feel free to keep going around in circles. All my responses addressing your circular argument have been posted.

 

[Skyring]

What an absolutely ludicrous presumption. I can't tell if you're being deliberately obtuse or if you have difficulty with things like numbers and order and such. So here is the simple version. Once is not twice. Hopefully you can understand that. Still probably more likely that you'll jump to another false conclusion.

Gillard booted Rudd and Rudd booted Gillard. That's two own goals, yeah? The ALP is full of head-kickers and the past three years have been full of leadership battles.

Obviously they haven't been fully focussed on good government.

If Labor had delivered good government, then they would have had fewer problems.

 

[medhead]

Gillard booted Rudd and Rudd booted Gillard. That's two own goals, yeah? The ALP is full of head-kickers and the past three years have been full of leadership battles.

Obviously they haven't been fully focussed on good government.

If Labor had delivered good government, then they would have had fewer problems.

Looks like I gave you too much credit. Try reading comprehension before asking ludicrous questions that have nothing to do with what I wrote.

 

[Moody]

... Yeah, sure, we've got the usual partisan figures talking up their team and dissing the other side. Nothing new there and you'd be a mug to depend on one-eyed voices for your information..

Here Here!

Listen to the experts who make their money by being objective. The bookies, for one thing. The experienced political journos for another.

So "being objective" is all about the betting odds.? How Australian ......

We wouldn't want to pick government based around who will do a better job, would we?

 

[Skyring]

Who's being wet. It's your analogy, if you don't understand it you shouldn't use it. For a start I did not say Abbott is not authorised to spend money on travel. I wrote he was not authorise to spend public money "as he did". As you stated he was called for using publicly provided transport to fund promotion of his private activities. No politician is authorised to use the taxpayer's money to fund private activities. You the one being wet If you think Abbott repaid money that he spent legitimately.

There is the fundamental difference Thomson's situation involves the use of private money. I'm not defending anyone, another false presumption on your part. Simply pointing out the failure of your rabid attack. All private organisations are entitled to use their money in whatever way they wish. (Within the confines of the law)

Clearly you're too blinded by ideology to understand such a simple concept.

On that note feel free to keep going around in circles. All my responses addressing your circular argument have been posted.

Personal attack isn't much of a response. Just sayin'.

I really don't care about the details. I'm no expert on politician or union entitlements, and I doubt anybody here is. If you are, then say so and I'll let you show us the references.

My point goes to behaviour. Abbott admitted and accepted his error. He repaid the money. No further action taken.

Thomson hasn't accepted his error. He hasn't repaid any money. He has attempted to blame someone else for his behaviour. He has been charged for criminal behaviour and he is being prosecuted.

Seems like a very clear difference to me.

 

[Skyring]

Looks like I gave you too much credit. Try reading comprehension before asking ludicrous questions that have nothing to do with what I wrote.

If I misunderstood you, then please explain.

My perception is that Tony Abbott destroyed two Prime Ministers. By highlighting their failures, leading to a loss of popularity in their governments. As the polls clearly show. Let's face it, Malcolm Turnbull wasn't doing anything to dent Rudd. Swap in Abbott and Rudd begins sinking.

Same thing with Gillard. Abbott highlights her failures and she loses popularity. In a very spectacular fashion.

Are you saying that Abbott had nothing to do with it and that Labor destroyed itself twice over?

 

[medhead]

Personal attack isn't much of a response. Just sayin'.

Shame you didn't just say that before your personal attack on me.

I really don't care about the details. I'm no expert on politician or union entitlements, and I doubt anybody here is. If you are, then say so and I'll let you show us the references.

My point goes to behaviour. Abbott admitted and accepted his error. He repaid the money. No further action taken.

Thomson hasn't accepted his error. He hasn't repaid any money. He has attempted to blame someone else for his behaviour. He has been charged for criminal behaviour and he is being prosecuted.

Seems like a very clear difference to me.

The clear difference is Abbott did wrong. Thomson has not, yet, been shown to have done wrong. In case you missed it, there is a big court case taking place to determine that question. The union might have authorised him to spend money as he did. As for the so called lies. He was responding to a politically motivated attack by non-union members. The internal workings of the union are none of their business and there is absolutely no requirement for him to answer them at all.

 

[medhead]

If I misunderstood you, then please explain.

My perception is that Tony Abbott destroyed two Prime Ministers. By highlighting their failures, leading to a loss of popularity in their governments. As the polls clearly show. Let's face it, Malcolm Turnbull wasn't doing anything to dent Rudd. Swap in Abbott and Rudd begins sinking.

Same thing with Gillard. Abbott highlights her failures and she loses popularity. In a very spectacular fashion.

Are you saying that Abbott had nothing to do with it and that Labor destroyed itself twice over?

I've written all I intend to write. If you can't understand it, I don't care.

 

[ComeFlyWithMe]

Shame you didn't just say that before your personal attack on me.



The clear difference is Abbott did wrong. Thomson has not, yet, been shown to have done wrong. In case you missed it, there is a big court case taking place to determine that question. The union might have authorised him to spend money as he did. As for the so called lies. He was responding to a politically motivated attack by non-union members. The internal workings of the union are none of their business and there is absolutely no requirement for him to answer them at all.

The procuring of prostitutes, regardless of whether the source of funding is legal or illegal, speaks to morality. It shows immoral behaviour. To do it with fairly low paid workers money highlights the same. Whether or not it was illegal behaviour makes no difference to me, nor to the electorate.

Making a mistake on a travel spend allowance, realising and correcting the mistake promptly speaks to morality. It shows ethical and moral behaviour.

Comparing the behaviour of one to another makes TA come up smelling like roses compared to the vile character that it CT, so thanks for the analogy.

 

[Skyring]

The clear difference is Abbott did wrong. Thomson has not, yet, been shown to have done wrong. In case you missed it, there is a big court case taking place to determine that question. The union might have authorised him to spend money as he did. As for the so called lies. He was responding to a politically motivated attack by non-union members. The internal workings of the union are none of their business and there is absolutely no requirement for him to answer them at all.

You seem to be using internal workings to obscure the facts.

Did Abbott make a mistake? Yes. He accepted it, admitted it, made amends. He's not being prosecuted. Nobody called in the cops.

Did Craig Thomson make a mistake? Gillard certainly thought so when she booted him out of the ALP. The DPP certainly did when he was charged. I certainly thought so on reading the Fair Work Australia report with its comprehensive listing of evidence against him and even more so when I listened to his laughable speech in Parliament.

But that's my objective opinion on the very different behaviour of two people.

I can just imagine the shrieks and cackles of subjectivity from some here if it was TA who had indulged in prostitutes, travel, entertainment and cash withdrawals from the government credit card and then said he knew nothing about it and he must have been set up by Malcolm Turnbull.

I always find the flip test very useful in evaluating my own responses and those of others. How would I react if instead of the opposing team, some action was taken or some statement made by a member of my preferred team/faith/party?

Or vice versa, of course.

How do you feel about the flip test? Use it much?

 

[medhead]

The procuring of prostitutes, regardless of whether the source of funding is legal or illegal, speaks to morality. It shows immoral behaviour. To do it with fairly low paid workers money highlights the same. Whether or not it was illegal behaviour makes no difference to me, nor to the electorate.

Making a mistake on a travel spend allowance, realising and correcting the mistake promptly speaks to morality. It shows ethical and moral behaviour.

Comparing the behaviour of one to another makes TA come up smelling like roses compared to the vile character that it CT, so thanks for the analogy.

And if you bother to read my posts your will find I already addressed the question of morality. Regardless, the fact remains he is facing court on fraud charges not immorality.

Also if you bother to read any posts in this thread you will find it is NOT my analogy.

 

[medhead]

You seem to be using internal workings to obscure the facts.

Did Abbott make a mistake? Yes. He accepted it, admitted it, made amends. He's not being prosecuted. Nobody called in the cops.

Did Craig Thomson make a mistake? Gillard certainly thought so when she booted him out of the ALP. The DPP certainly did when he was charged. I certainly thought so on reading the Fair Work Australia report with its comprehensive listing of evidence against him and even more so when I listened to his laughable speech in Parliament.

But that's my objective opinion on the very different behaviour of two people.

I can just imagine the shrieks and cackles of subjectivity from some here if it was TA who had indulged in prostitutes, travel, entertainment and cash withdrawals from the government credit card and then said he knew nothing about it and he must have been set up by Malcolm Turnbull.

I always find the flip test very useful in evaluating my own responses and those of others. How would I react if instead of the opposing team, some action was taken or some statement made by a member of my preferred team/faith/party?

Or vice versa, of course.

How do you feel about the flip test? Use it much?

I'm not obscuring anything with internal workings. Simply saying that in a democracy the court determines guilt or innocence. Not a lynch mob lead by Abbott.

As for the flip test, try flipping to see the behaviour and response of your other side in relation to the liberal MP charged and convicted of shop lifting. Given your desire to act as judge, jury and executioner, I doubt you've even used your beloved flip test.

 

[Skyring]

I'm not obscuring anything with internal workings. Simply saying that in a democracy the court determines guilt or innocence. Not a lynch mob lead by Abbott.

Mmmm, but it was Gillard booted Craig Thomson out of the ALP. She must have had an opinion on the matter, don't you think?

 

[Skyring]

As for the flip test, try flipping to see the behaviour and response of your other side in relation to the liberal MP charged and convicted of shop lifting. Given your desire to act as judge, jury and executioner, I doubt you've even used your beloved flip test.

Um, I don't think there has been any recent case of a Liberal senator being convicted of shoplifting. Perhaps you'd like to check your facts?

As for your other point, I said I always find the flip test very useful in evaluating my own responses and those of others. How would I react if instead of the opposing team, some action was taken or some statement made by a member of my preferred team/faith/party?

I'm not lying to you, to myself, or anyone else when I say this. The flip test is indeed a useful tool for evaluating my own perceptions. I recommend it to all.