https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-MosmUseSY
the member arriving in sydney
Printable View
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-MosmUseSY
the member arriving in sydney
That Afro!!!!!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by q-money
actually it's factually incorrect there are no black people in the sydney CBD
The majority of Greens believe in Ricardian Equivalence and if that's not right wing ideology then I'll be ****ed if I know what is.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Hypothetical conundrum:
disaster etiquette
8o odd yr old is among some hostages in an apparent 1 off seige (happens daily in many other countries).
Being the elder should he take responsibility of taking on gunman while the younguns flee OR every man, woman, child for themselves?
If he's anything like my grandpappy was he'd just want to listen to the races and then talk so much the captors would neck themselves.Quote:
Originally Posted by hawk
Old people are the worst.
fkn lulzQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
Bang On the Money.Quote:
THE giant mound of flowers in Martin Place said it all. The evil of the Lindt cafe siege gently *expunged by the love of thousands of strangers who came on Tuesday to pay their respects to the dead and express sorrow for the survivors.
Love wiping away hate, as tears flowed for the two dead hostages, hero cafe manager Tori Johnson, 34, and barrister Katrina Dawson, 38, and three small children whose mother will never come home.
“This is who we are,” Premier Mike Baird tweeted after he laid down his floral tribute.
Yes, this is who we are, Sydney. Muslim, Jewish, Christian, agnostic, drawn from every culture and race, united through the horror of December 15, the very model of a strong, harmonious society.
We are not a collection of bigots and Islamophobes, needing moral guidance from more enlightened leftists.
That Sydney is the gargoyle creation of the fevered leftist imagination, creating division where there is none.
Thus it was that on Monday, while real people were suffering at the hands of an Islamic State-inspired terrorist in Martin Place, hashtag activists sprang to the defence of theoretical victims of an Islamophobia that wasn’t occurring.
“I’ll ride with you” was their catchphrase, or “#illridewithyou” in social media’s *grammatical sludge.
The idea was that Muslims could not ride safely on public transport in Sydney during the siege because bigots would attack them, so good-hearted strangers had to “ride” with them, metaphorically, anyway.
It was a frivolous diversion from the real victims inside the Lindt cafe. The irony is the silly fad was started 1000km away, in Brisbane, by a Greens candidate who fantasised the whole thing. Rachael Jacobs was on a train in Brisbane on Monday reading about the unfolding siege on her phone when she noticed a woman fiddling with her headscarf at the other end of the carriage. “Tears sprang to my eyes and I was struck by feelings of anger, sadness and bitterness,” she wrote in Fairfax media yesterday.
But Jacobs’ tears were for the “victims of the siege who were not in the cafe,” she wrote.
“Victims” like the woman at the other end of the carriage who had taken off her scarf — for what reason Jacobs never bothered to find out.
She was too busy turning her imagined brush with *Islamophobia into a narrative which soon was trending in tens of thousands of tweets around the world.
“She might not even be Muslim or she could have just been warm” Jacobs later admitted.
“Our near silent encounter was over in a moment.”
The meaningless, narcissistic, one-sided nature of this “near silent encounter” perfectly symbolises the leftist *approach to Islamist terrorism.
Denial, deflection, projection. They see themselves as morally superior to the rest of Australia, which they imagine as a sea of ignorant rednecks. In their eyes the threat is not terrorism but Islamophobia. “Actually, everyone is a victim,” Curtin University counterterrorism lecturer Anne Aly shouted at me on Channel 9’s Today show yesterday when I pointed out that the real victims were the 17 hostages.
Yet for all the screeching, there are precious few instances where Muslims have been victimised in Sydney, unless you count anonymous trolls on social media.
Remember when the *Macquarie University Muslim Students *Association went out on the streets with a video camera and actors posing as bigots harassing Muslims?
In every single case *passers-by intervened to defend the “victim”.
But that display of Australian good character and *common sense was ignored by leftist troublemakers.
They prefer to downplay the terrorist threat and excuse the perpetrators. In their view the self-styled Iranian-born sheik and alleged rapist Man Haron Monis was a humanitarian, motivated by concern for children dying in the Middle East. (Or, a “peace activist”, as his lawyers describe him when he was charged with sending vile letters to the families of dead Aussie soldiers).
They accuse those who are trying to keep us safe from terrorism of Islamophobic scaremongering. Thus NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione was guilty of “overreach” in the Operation Appleby raids in Western Sydney in September to foil an IS-inspired plot to kidnap and execute a hostage in Martin Place. Doesn’t look so fanciful now, does it.
On Monday the Enlightened nitpicked about whether the flag Monis forced his hostages to hold up was an IS flag or just a generic flag used by the Taliban and al-Qaeda.
They tried to pretend Monis wasn’t a terrorist, even though he was the classic lone wolf who so concerns our security forces, low-tech, high impact, near impossible to detect.
They tried to distance him from IS, though his demands, issued via hostages to media outlets, were all about the death cult — he wanted an IS flag delivered to the cafe and he wanted it known that Australia was under attack from IS.
Some even used the horror that emptied the streets of *Sydney as a Green teaching moment with leftist journalism academic Wendy Bacon tweeting during the siege: “Clearing of cars in CBD gives you idea of how pleasant *carless city might be (despite context).” Good grief.
You know what the context is? We are the most harmonious immigrant nation on Earth and the constant cry of Islamophobia is a despicable slander against our good nature.
Lawyers will talk till they’re blue in the face trying to defend the decision to allow violent Islamist nut job Man Haron Monis out on bail.
Whether it’s the new bail laws or the old bail laws, judges and magistrates can and do exercise their own discretion when it comes to the low-lifes who frequent their docks. Monis’ violent criminal history, and obsessive zealotry ought to have shown that he is exactly the sort of person who should be refused bail.
Embraced by Australia as a refugee from his native Iran in 2001, Monis repaid our kindness by harassing the families of soldiers who had died in Afghanistan.
This was his “jihad” he said, as his lawyers called him a “peace activist”.
In an insult to our dead Diggers he was sentenced to a paltry 300 hours of community service. Then he was charged with being an accessory before and after the fact to the brutal stabbing murder of his ex-wife, and released on bail last year.
And then this year he was charged with 40 counts of sexual assault — and released on bail again.
This was not a man who deserved the benefit of the doubt. Reporting at a police station once a day wasn’t going to protect society from a dangerous Islamist ideologue whose life was spiralling out of control.
How can we expect counterterrorism agencies to keep us safe from suspects who haven’t yet committed a crime when our courts won’t even deal properly with the evidence of those who have.
New tougher bail laws are due next year but former director of public prosecutions Nicholas Cowdery has told the ABC they won’t make any difference.
He’s right. The real problem is not the laws but the judicial officers who refuse to enforce them.
Shes usually so far wrong it ain't funny but this time she hits the nail
The leftist propaganda machine can **** off and stop ****ing our country up.
Dumb ****s would be the first to go anyway if the extremists took over anyway
mfks - did you get a text msg about cronulla back in the day bra? i didn't, but a few of my friends did
Nah Brah I have no friends :woo:Quote:
Originally Posted by snake
The majority of greens are just crack pots to start with.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
Their ideaology springs from any direction their crack pot ideas come from but mainly comes from the left with what "they think" are progressive ideas which most of the time have no substance and appeal to the people bar small groups in the minority in society
takes a nut to know a nut
So what you are saying is that ones ideological position has no relevance to where anyone is positioned within the political spectrum ?Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
If that's the case then why do you even refer to anyone as being from the left or the right ?
With respect to Greens being crackpots I'm not going to disagree. However, I wouldn't say they hold a monopoly on being the nutters of the political system either.
The Member doesn't do riots.Quote:
Originally Posted by snake
Too many plastic thugs just turning up on the day.
WHERE WERE THEY WENT WE WANTED OUT OF 'NAM!!!!!!!!
Ok. Fair enough. Lets see how you will fair without.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
- medicare
- social security
- annual leave
- sick leave
- long service leave
- minimum wage
- super annuation
- 40 hour working week
- penalty rates
- Worker Compensation
- that little thing called democracy
- free or cheap education
- subsidised public transport
- subsidised public housing for the poor
- collective agreements
The ALP would get rid of it all soon enough as well. Keating and Hawk did more damage to the union movement than Fraser, Howard, and Abbott combined.
The wages accord years merely lowered real wages and shifted income from workers to the capitalist owners because the capitalist put any productivity gains in their own pockets rather than passed them on to the workers.
Which I might add the capitalist owners had every right to do given they were operating within the law.
Democracy simply does not exist when all major parties are controlled by Oligarchs from the banking/Finance, Pharmaceutical, Insurance, mining, and media sectors... to name a few.
Legit. Dunster on the money again.Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dunster
Although to be fair in relation to tariff reductions etc the ALP had full support from the Libs, they thought it was ****ing Christmas.
When have the left been worried about these things recently??Quote:
Originally Posted by Skirt Boy
They are more interested in the big issues of multi coloured pedestrian crossings, letting Adam and Steve get married, harassing foreigners for fishing for whales in the Southern Ocean and any other useless shit that catches their fancy
Nothin wrong with Adam and Steve being happy tho.
Leave it out Member.
Couldn't give a **** if Adam and Steve are happy. The biggest hurdle with gay marriage is religion. It clearly states in every religion that Adam and Steve is not on.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
The lefty ****s are quite happy to push this agenda to normalise their sin despite the religious lots beliefs on the subject.
Same hypocrites though will not push at Islam at all for their oppression of females despite feminist issues and equality being a big thing for lefties.
Lefties happy to hammer the Christians and their beliefs but will not touch Islam for fear of offending
so hold on, you are against gay marriage? are you also against civil marriage as it effectively has nothing to do with god pretty much?
you do know that gay marriage will be the biggest boost to the economy since digging rocks out of the ground
Yeah, but won't we all get the Aids if that happens?Quote:
Originally Posted by q-money
Will they have seperate drinking fountains?
I listen to talkback radio.
pretty sure the member is only against gay marriage because he knows plague is expecting him to pop the question soon and he's just not sure if he's ready to be tied down
Homophobe.Quote:
Originally Posted by parksey
That made me laugh well done :lol:Quote:
Originally Posted by parksey
Was more interested in keeping it to the subject at hand the hypocrisy of the lefties rather than the Members personal views but since you asked happy to oblige.Quote:
Originally Posted by q-money
Marriage is a part of my religion. My religion clearly defines its opinion on same sex activities as a no no. There is no dispute in its stance. I am not overtly fussed on those who do partake in these activities. Each to their own and their choice to turn their back on god. They will be judged by god on judgement day for their sins either way
My religion respects and believes the union of marriage as being a sacrament bond between man and women. It is our right for following the word of god.
Those who choose not to do not receive the same entitlement and they can **** off for all I care trying to get the laws of this country changed to recognise their sin as legal/normal
But "the church" doesn't run this country.
Thank god.
What is or who is god?
Is that some hippy looking dude from space?
Religious values are the starting point for the laws of the country and the values in our society.Quote:
Originally Posted by GazFish35
This quite possibly the best post you've ever written.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
I disagree 100% with your stance but respect the fact you have one.
What no one has ever been able to explain is that who exactly 'owns' the word 'marriage'?
Is is the church or is it the state?
Because if it is the church then they get to define it.
If it's the state then by all means take it to a vote.
Does anyone know this for certain?
Also the worst bit about the whole debate back when it went to parliament the other year was the Libs not allowing a conscience vote and the absolute spineless behaviour of the big talking higher ups in the ALP who all voted no.
**** them all.
Oh and praising you for a good post isn't hard coz geez you carry on a bit sometimes.
Our legal system is based on Common Law. A legal framework that can trace it's history back to pre-Christian England and Germany. Even in the first effort of codifying the laws of England by Alfred the Great he used the existing laws of the Three Kingdoms of England which was generally copied from old Saxon Law (The law in Germany)Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
The only reason why there is a perception that modern law is based on religion is because the early legal texts were written in a style similar to Mosaic Law. Remember we are talking about an era when only the extremely wealthy and the clergy could read and write so things had to be kept ****ing simple.
And throughout English history, the Monarch being the supreme judge, many of the important texts on law usually came at a time when a Monarch was really really opposed to the Church. (John I, Henry VIII and so forth)
Conscience vote could see a political party lose office if they voted in favour of it and it got up. People get pretty wound up on shit like this abortion etcQuote:
Originally Posted by plague
As for who owns marriage **** is that a good question in the line of how long is a piece of string.
It is not exactly answerable definitively one way or another. Religion will claim they have had ownership of it for two thousand years of use. The state of Australia is just over 110 years old if federation is your starting point and 220odd if you use the first fleet settlement as a starting point.
The Marriage act of Australia which is the legal thing that needs altering if gay marriage was to be legalised is circa 1961 from the internet
Vote Quimby
Yeah this is why I find the debate interesting.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Regardless I think that all couples (hetro/gay/de facto) should all have the exact same rights in our society. If we get that far then I think re-defining the word won't seem as big an issue.
(Cue the South Park 'butt buddies' episode).
thou shall not ride a bike on a footpath. leave them holy for walkingQuote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
well ****en dun, god you ****. thanks for all the cancer and stillborns you ****wit. you sure showed us for having some **** who didn't exist break a stupid ****ing law so you can punish me, even thogh i'm not descendent oh him since he never existed.
why don't you drown us all you donkey-raping shit eater? surely we're more ****ed up than noah the old ****. stop the boats. p.s. how the **** did sloths get on thhe boat? penguis? polar bears?
why is ther only "record" of animals known to desert tribes of the day on the boat? how come none of them died on the way back to their natural habitat? surely a lion would be like "i cbf chasing these fast as **** zebras, i'm just gonna snack me this here badger"
imagine following a book written about a desert bloke who may not have even existed, which absolutely was written by only second and third (or worse) hand accounts, some 100 or so years after he may or may not have died. imagine still believing it 1900+ years later. wouldn't you feel like a dumb ****?
p.s. do u talk into your hands m8?
Religion has thousands of years of history. It is a subject that people who embrace it feel incredibly passionate about. Your asking them to neglect this and disregard the word of god just to accept Adam and Steve being married and committing what is clearly defined in the book of god as a sin.Quote:
Originally Posted by plague
Your pushing shit up a hill
Oh I don't doubt for one second that it's a big deal. That's why I think that if we at least give all couples the same rights in our supposed non church influenced society then the god squad get to keep their term 'married' and the govt at least doesn't treat these alternate couples as outcasts.Quote:
Originally Posted by MFKS
Remember as well sex before marriage, contraception and abortion are also pretty frowned upon by the church yet they 'seem' to be fairly well accepted in society now. Yes the fringe still has a prob but I don't deal with the 1%ers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by snake
Much bigger issue is that if there is a God then why did he give us Gypo's?