and you might wanna check Penny Wongs record when it comes to voting on the issue.
She's the loudest mouth out there at a convenient time when her vote is not needed.
and you might wanna check Penny Wongs record when it comes to voting on the issue.
She's the loudest mouth out there at a convenient time when her vote is not needed.
160 million??Originally Posted by furns
The ****ers in Canberra waste that amount several times a week
Seems like a bargain to me
Be interesting to see how the people actually think about this issue rather than the bullshit being shoved down people's throats by the atheist lefties out there who have been claiming loudly that everyone wants gay marriage without any proof to back their claims up
You are right a vocal minority has managed to hijack the conversation in this country.
What really is a nothing issue sure gets a lot of attention. Of all the things that are wrong in this country that need fixing and letting Adam and Steve get married is apparently right at the top of the list.FMD
Can thank the artist lefties out there for this one
Correct, but that was in 2012. The debate has moved on in leaps and bounds since then.
And its not really "my side" being that I'm heterosexual, but I dont see any issue with the Marriage Act being amended.
And Turnbull is trapped and its all to do with the nutters. All he has to do is change the party stance on the plebiscite to a free vote in parliament and the hard right will turf him out quicker than you can say "Tony Abbott". He is holding onto the office of PM by a thread, stepping out on a divisive issue will kill his leadership. Again.
Subscribe to The Jetstream Podcast http://www.newcastlefootball.net/podcast
lol
Or another way of looking at it is most people are now in favour, but the constant efforts of the religious nutters to quash the whole thing is what keeps it in limbo rather than just allowing parliamentarians to do their bloody job and vote on an issue of amending a piece of legislation according to the wishes of their constituents.
And for such a nothing issue, you see no problem in spending $160mil on it? Id hate to see what you'd spend on something more important.
Subscribe to The Jetstream Podcast http://www.newcastlefootball.net/podcast
Yeah but the debacle in 2012 showed you all you need to know about trusting politicians to do the right thing by their constituents.
As recently as last year Wong (again) and Plibersek abstained from voting at their conference on alyssum seekers despite being front and centre in the media whenever there was a photo op to be had.
Id much rather the vote be handled by the public than trust these pricks to do the right thing.
I disagree with Bernardi on pretty much everything but have way more respect for him as a representative of the people because at least he declared his hand and sticks to it.
Heaven help these assholes take a policy to the election, get it voted on then stick with it rather than chop and change every time the wind blows (royal commission into NT detention anyone?)
Oh and for the record I'd prob not base my vote on my parliamentary rep on their views on marriage equality, but would def vote yes in a plebiscite.
160 million
I actually would not be surprised if the Plebiscite actually got knocked back.
I don't think the numbers in support of Adam and Steve are anywhere near as strong as the aethist lefties would have us believe
For 160 million it will be quite a ****ing laugh if it gets knocked back.
Make no mistake about it the pollies in favour of Adam and Steve don't want this going to a Plebiscite as they know it isn't a for gone conclusion to get up
oops, it's against the law to insult on the basis of religion. spaghetti hats havent hurt anyone man
Why are people wanting to legalize Gay and Lesbian marriage ? Haven't these people suffered enough already ?
lol - ever been to a gay wedding? I hear they're marvellous.
Subscribe to The Jetstream Podcast http://www.newcastlefootball.net/podcast
And I'm with the good Member on the money issue.
Now they want to save $160m
Now?
Ok great now that we are so fiscally frugal let's look at the billions we are spending on subs or the NBN or welfare or middle class subsidies.
Oh wait, we good with blowing whatever there.
But gosh darn it that $160m is a deal breaker.
The money spent becomes earned income for the non-government sectors of the economy. It's never a question of affordability in any modern economy.
The only thing that is questionable is the distribution of the income when it is spent.
As I think you are trying to point out governments choose to call anything against their ideologies wasteful and anything that supports their ideologies to be a worthwhile investment.
Too right. We could smash multiple cancers, have free health care and give everyone houses but noooooo lets lest beat our chests over a false security of useless underwater bathtubs.
NBN is important but.
what I don't get is a plebiscite anyway - its not binding, save the cash and ask the question at an election.
the issue is ridiculous though.
I get religious groups see it as "union of blah blah" so let churches decide who they marry, but my marriage is a legal document registered with the state, not the church. so should anyone else's if they so choose. why do I get that right, but others don't, a church had zero to do with my marriage, why should a religious view stop others from being married in the eyes of the state too.
you hear some bang on about protectin the sanctity of marriage!!!! **** me. you can win a wedding in a tv show, us straight folk have destroyed the sanctity of marriage a long time ago.
Truthbomb right there.
I don't understand why political parties are so against legalizing gay marriage (if they are at all) - it creates so, so many jobs.
OK
Why didn't they just add another tickbox to the Census we all recently did (or are still doing) and asked us to put yes/no on whether we wanted to legalize gay marriage or not. Would have been so simple and cost bugger all extra - and we know all if not most of Australians would have had to answer it.
OK
imagine if the government told the member what he could and couldn't do
Plenty of people think the same about going to war.
And tax reform.
And crime and punishment
And the environment.
We elect put officials to govern these issues in the best interests of society.
Sometimes that clashes with what individuals think.
The best you can hope for is that your local official carries through on the policy they took to the last election.
That's why the plebiscite is actually way more than just a vote on marriage equality.
To be fair the good Member sounds like the type of bloke that would LOVE to own a massive arsenal of guns and a backyard full of exotic animals like tigers and spitting cobras.
Big Gubmint is already holding our boy back.
Dunster, I seem to recall you have some expertise in economics - couple of things I'm a bit curious about. Does the concept of trickle down economics have merit either in current implementation or in theory? On face value it seems counter intuitive but I have heard some good arguments for it.
Also am I correct in being frustrated that the current political preference with regards to the the economy is to "get the budget under control" and get a surplus happening ASAP. It seems to me a very primitive thing to try and push through, presumably with the aim of popularity rather than actual economic benefit. Am I wrong here?
Be interested to hear your thoughts
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote