Jump to content
scruffy1

how crap is this government ?

Recommended Posts

6 hours ago, eveln said:

I mostly concur ... Which makes the Guardian's attack on the Gov. even less accurate. The problem of the mentality wrt to criminal paedophiles has no real political or religious boundaries.

To imply that it does, seriously demeans us all.

Why are you so keen on trying to make out that Labor is just as bad? I'm pretty sure you won't find much in the way of Labor members or supporters in the press defending Pell, which is the focus of the article. 

I'm struggling to recall any attacks on this government I've seen that they haven't deserved... They really are the utter fucking pits. Labor suck arse in some of the same ways, to almost the same extent in most cases, but there are many ways in which they're much less bad, and even a few ways in which they're actually okay.

Tell me one. fucking. way. the LNP is less than terrible.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Kimmo said:

Why are you so keen on trying to make out that Labor is just as bad? I'm pretty sure you won't find much in the way of Labor members or supporters in the press defending Pell, which is the focus of the article. 

I'm struggling to recall any attacks on this government I've seen that they haven't deserved... They really are the utter fucking pits. Labor suck arse in some of the same ways, to almost the same extent in most cases, but there are many ways in which they're much less bad, and even a few ways in which they're actually okay.

Tell me one. fucking. way. the LNP is less than terrible.  

🙂

Entertainment value ?

Joking, but after all, they are a joke - a bad one...

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, chrisg said:

Entertainment value ?

Joking, but after all, they are a joke - a bad one...

If you mean the Guardian is a joke, then I concur once again. A bad, indecent joke at that. To infer that their readers would believe only the right wingers would consider a paedophile to be an okay person regardless ...
and also to assume that Pell was the only possible paedophile out there worth getting all upset about.

The noises about abuses of children have been heard for decades and decades, and yes it was Gillard who helped to make the royal commission a thing ... and look what her Party and Rudd did to her ... so please tell me how simply fucking wonderful the Labor government is on looking after the Children of Australia ... please tell me

That last request  also directed at Kimmo too.

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, aliali said:

May be left compared to the LNP dropkicks but the ALP is hardly a left wing party these days. Both major parties have shifted quite a bit to the right since the 1970s at least.

Which is why I don't really understand the Guardian ( or Kimmo"s ) attacking the Government as the big nasty rightwingers ... when if I read it right the people known to have said or done something, were Howard who wrote something, and is not a sitting member of Parliament and Abbot who sits on the back bench and went to see Pell. Has Abbott said yet what he believes about Pell ?

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eveln said:

Which is why I don't really understand the Guardian ( or Kimmo"s ) attacking the Government as the big nasty rightwingers ... when if I read it right the people known to have said or done something, were Howard who wrote something, and is not a sitting member of Parliament and Abbot who sits on the back bench and went to see Pell. Has Abbott said yet what he believes about Pell ?

Refer to the Political Compass bit I posted some time ago; the ALP are now very right wing and authoritarian - but not as much as the NLP.  Or do you consider "less awful" to be as bad as "really awful" ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cybes said:

Refer to the Political Compass bit I posted some time ago; the ALP are now very right wing and authoritarian - but not as much as the NLP.  Or do you consider "less awful" to be as bad as "really awful" ?

What does it matter ? Of course the ALP are more right wing. Every body knows that. What I consider is that there are those within the Opposition who would quietly believe in Pell too ... they just won't come out and say it cos, politics you know

I did notice an article I read tonight described him as George Pell only ... no title other than his name.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Evelyn, I don't know that anyone actually think George Pell is the only paedophile worth worrying about. But big names getting actual punishments seems important. I'd say it's probably more important to make his charge stick than some priest (or any other paedophile, but seeing as we're talking a high up catholic church figure I'm going by hierarchy) noone has heard of. You'd definitely want that one to stick but the message that no amount of money and political influence is going to save a paedophile any more. It's important the message gets to them and to more decent society so they can see the legal system has some sort of teeth and to future victims that feel they will get heard if they come forward. 

But I think Bill Cosby was a similarly big case for the entertainment industry. Probably a bigger deal in the States than here but that's how geographical divides go. 

As far a sympathisers, I don't think it sends a good message, especially for the LNP, when 2 of their (and the country's) former leaders are publicly in support of Pell. It sends a poor message for everyone I mentioned before. If they truly believe he is of good character I wish they could have got their statements in under the suppression order so noone knew. I think with such a sensitive subject that it would be better for the community, especially if he loses the appeal. So, to me, it's less about how many people on each side believe what about the case but what they are publicly doing. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's difficult to be surprised by most anything the onion cruncher says, or whom he supports. Just how he ever came to be the country's leader is nothing more than a sad indictment of the state of politics in Australia at most all levels and within most all parties.

Every now and again the Guardian does publish some sense, the rest of the time it's a non-illustrated comic book for those of a one-eyed belief.

An enduring problem with politics and its media supporters is the "taking sides" and the "always right" mentality that happens on both sides of politics. Those attitudes belong in the playground not out in the serious world.

Real politics and real governance needs to transcend party lines but significant persons crossing over is a rarity in today's world.

Churchill for some reason is a sort of demi-God to many, including parts of my family whilst others can't abide him.

In my view he was a great orator and a genuine believer in the Greatness of Britain and the Empire but he was also often a bloody fool. Yet even he crossed the house a couple of times following his beliefs and not a party line.

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, eveln said:

If you mean the Guardian is a joke, then I concur once again. A bad, indecent joke at that. To infer that their readers would believe only the right wingers would consider a paedophile to be an okay person regardless ...
and also to assume that Pell was the only possible paedophile out there worth getting all upset about.

The noises about abuses of children have been heard for decades and decades, and yes it was Gillard who helped to make the royal commission a thing ... and look what her Party and Rudd did to her ... so please tell me how simply fucking wonderful the Labor government is on looking after the Children of Australia ... please tell me

Wow, that's some impressive mental gymnastics to get there. It's gonna take a bit to unpack all those contortions. 

Pff, the Guardian a joke. Tell me a better paper, just like you didn't tell me a single way the LNP isn't awful. I find it amazing that anyone is prepared to publicly defend scumbags like Pell, but guess what? RWNJs are that terrible. Consistently. In the US, you had the incredible spectacle of support for Roy Moore, from more RWNJs than just Trump. In the UK, the Tories were (are?) tangled up with an aristocratic paedo ring, for crying out loud. Instead of scoffing at the idea that left and right aren't as bad as each other, how about naming a single prominent leftie who sticks up for child molesters?

You're not convincing anyone when all you have is evidence-free rhetoric. You won't name any redeeming features of the LNP; why is that? Is it because you like them for reasons many here hate them for? Here's why Labor is inherently better than the LNP - ask yourself which of the two a humanist would support. You know, someone who puts human rights before shit like continuing the dominance of their own group, or profits for rent seekers, or the tattered status of fucking child molesters. I wouldn't have thought that's such a tall order. 

As for your second paragraph there... really? You don't see how long a bow you're drawing there? The main reason Gillard was dumped was not because she had anything to do with instigating a RC into child abuse (wow); it was because both parties have become obsessed with Newspoll (although Labor seems to have learned its lesson), and because we have some of the worst media concentration in the world (which the Guardian is a slight antidote for, BTW), and both parties are slaves to varying degrees to the right wing agenda of the MSM, which was doubly hard on Gillard because that includes a strong dose of misogyny. As if that should need saying. OMG. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, chrisg said:

Every now and again the Guardian does publish some sense, the rest of the time it's a non-illustrated comic book for those of a one-eyed belief.

I think you're pandering to the News Ltd set with that. I'm still waiting to hear from anyone what they think is a better news outlet... 

The Guardian does stuff like this. Does anything any other mob do top that? And yeah, it's all shit on the LNP, but right now they are the government, which is where the action is when it comes to holding politicians to account. 

There may indeed be some vestigial reluctance to shitcan Labor (which I'd argue is at the scale of margin of error), but that's borne not of any sort of rabid partisanship, but the fact that until hung parliaments are the norm, it's a two-party system, and that to anyone reasonably well balanced, the LNP is an unconscionable option: cynical nest-feathering scum with virtually no concern for the nation's welfare, and barely even concerned with being seen to give a shit these days. It's all race-baiting, fear-mongering scapegoating, repeating discredited tropes ad nauseum, brazen denial of the obvious, spin, spin, spin. Doubtless there's actually some virtue hidden somewhere in the ranks, but it's so well-suppressed you have to go looking for it with a microscope. 

And given our media landscape, which is basically little more than a giant propaganda machine for the oligarchy, serving to polish the utter turd that is the LNP and give them a fighting chance where they deserve none, I can see a mighty temptation for those of a fair and balanced disposition to put a finger on the scale in favor of the undeniably deeply flawed and far from unblemished Labor party, in order to counter the arsenal of dirty tricks the scum shamelessly deploy at every opportunity to play us for mugs. Yet, I see admirable restraint when it comes to laying that finger on the scale. Hardly one-eyed. 

I think First Dog is a great fit for the Guardian, quite accurately representing the stance of the publication as a whole, and thus could serve as a useful proxy regarding any suggestions of bias. Do you think he shies away from shitcannning Labor when the situation demands it?

Edited by Kimmo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, fliptopia said:

Hey Evelyn, I don't know that anyone actually think George Pell is the only paedophile worth worrying about. But big names getting actual punishments seems important. I'd say it's probably more important to make his charge stick than some priest (or any other paedophile, but seeing as we're talking a high up catholic church figure I'm going by hierarchy) noone has heard of. You'd definitely want that one to stick but the message that no amount of money and political influence is going to save a paedophile any more. It's important the message gets to them and to more decent society so they can see the legal system has some sort of teeth and to future victims that feel they will get heard if they come forward. 

But I think Bill Cosby was a similarly big case for the entertainment industry. Probably a bigger deal in the States than here but that's how geographical divides go. 

As far a sympathisers, I don't think it sends a good message, especially for the LNP, when 2 of their (and the country's) former leaders are publicly in support of Pell. It sends a poor message for everyone I mentioned before. If they truly believe he is of good character I wish they could have got their statements in under the suppression order so noone knew. I think with such a sensitive subject that it would be better for the community, especially if he loses the appeal. So, to me, it's less about how many people on each side believe what about the case but what they are publicly doing. 

Of course Pell is a scalp worth scalping . It let's the Catholics ( at least ) know that the laws of the land are for them too, not just their flock. I've been banging on about that for the last ten years or so on here 😉

I will not stick up for the likes of Howard. ... as for Abbott, The Kangaroo Court is fully functioning I see. Good to know a person can be found guilty without the full story.

And if you think I'm suddenly defending Abbott cos I've gone all right wing or something then, perhaps re-reading my posts wouldn't be a bad idea.

What is going on with Pell is fucking waaaay more important than our political woes. And it's disgusting that the Guardian uses it to enforce their leftwing agenda ... imo 🙂

Now, I have things to do in real life ....

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

Like most newspapers, probably particularly the ones that are most successful online The Guardian has moved a little further in the political direction that it was always pointed, just basically globally and not just another future fish and chips wrapper.

There was a time when I lived in England and traveled to London or vice versa as a reverse commuter I bought a different newspaper every day of the week to attempt to get something of a balanced interpretation of what was going on. The Guardian I bought on a Wednesday (Tuesday for tits 🙂 ) and saved The Times for Friday, mostly because I had the weekend to do the notoriously difficult crossword, with mixed success. Sundays I bought the Express, because it really was a good interesting paper with excellent special interest columns such as motoring, travel and cooking. Even then you could not really rely on any of them to report the news in a completely unbiased fashion but nowadays it is pretty much a joke.

Australia I found  much the same when I emigrated although The Australian did have its day. The tendency for newspapers to be state based and poor at world reporting eventually just put me off the medium entirely. Take a trip to Asia and pick up perhaps The Straits Times and you wonder just what we never see reported here and that is a very biased paper itself.

So nowadays and for a long time I get my news from a mix of RSS feeds and news compilation websites plus other sources as needed.  I don't directly subscribe to the Guardian but it does get quoted a lot, however perhaps I was a little unfair.

 

Cheers

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, eveln said:

I will not stick up for the likes of Howard. ... as for Abbott, The Kangaroo Court is fully functioning I see. Good to know a person can be found guilty without the full story.

?

Howard is a bloody deity amongst Liberals. His double-speaking,  dog-whistling reactionary politics have set the tone for the Libs ever since his reign, and the Mad Monk is one of his chief acolytes. 

If you're aware that Howard was filth, I find it a mystery why you'd find the blustering, blundering onion-cruncher preferable in any regard... looks a bit better with his shirt off? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Kimmo said:

?

Howard is a bloody deity amongst Liberals. His double-speaking,  dog-whistling reactionary politics have set the tone for the Libs ever since his reign, and the Mad Monk is one of his chief acolytes. 

If you're aware that Howard was filth, I find it a mystery why you'd find the blustering, blundering onion-cruncher preferable in any regard... looks a bit better with his shirt off? 

In this particular case Abbott hasn't *further* backed Pell since the conviction. At least not in the manner of writing a character reference. Although the fact he was calling him (as a friend) because Pell is going through a "very, very bad experience" still doesn't sound good. And then there was all the praise for Pell's character in the light of the accusations made at first. 

But still, he has handled it better than Howard. Strange he doesn't remember if his friend asked him for a character reference though. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, eveln said:

What is going on with Pell is fucking waaaay more important than our political woes. And it's disgusting that the Guardian uses it to enforce their leftwing agenda ... imo 🙂

for one, its an opinion piece, so lets not confuse it with propaganda being passed off as objective fact

secondly, its commenting on what characterises the far-right cronyism to which the liberal party has been held hostage so visibly during the last two terms, demonstrated by their handling of issues like same-sex marriage and climate change and most recently their conspicuous rallying behind a convicted molester.  this is an extremely topical and newsworthy feature of our government in its own right, quite irrespective of whatever Labor is doing or has done, and not drawing attention to the rampant anti-democratic rot within the ruling party would be FAR closer to "enforcing an agenda".

get a grip, eveln!

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, @~thehung said:
7 hours ago, eveln said:

What is going on with Pell is fucking waaaay more important than our political woes. And it's disgusting that the Guardian uses it to enforce their leftwing agenda ... imo 🙂

... so lets not confuse it with propaganda being passed off as objective fact

 

get a grip, eveln!

my grip is just fine thanks.  I think ^^ that is exactly what The Guardian is trying to do

Cronyism is a problem within any of the Parties which ever side of the wing they be at.

3 hours ago, fliptopia said:

In this particular case Abbott hasn't *further* backed Pell since the conviction. At least not in the manner of writing a character reference. Although the fact he was calling him (as a friend) because Pell is going through a "very, very bad experience" still doesn't sound good. And then there was all the praise for Pell's character in the light of the accusations made at first. 

But still, he has handled it better than Howard. Strange he doesn't remember if his friend asked him for a character reference though. 

I'm curious to see how Abbott will resolve this, and even whether he goes public about his thoughts on it. I dare say the feeling of personal betrayal would be a real kicker. Howard is just a user of relations, for whatever worth they could give him in his career. Was it Howard that released the character  reference to the public domain, or did someone else do it ? ... It's just I'm a little surprised that Howard would do that pre-emptively.

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Cybes said:

Refer to the Political Compass bit I posted some time ago; the ALP are now very right wing and authoritarian - but not as much as the NLP.  Or do you consider "less awful" to be as bad as "really awful" ?

They jumped pretty hard 'right' when they floated the dollar and deregulated a bunch of industries in the 80s and 90s.

I don't even know where a party that believed in well regulated but mostly free markets would sit on the PC axis.

 

 

On 05/03/2019 at 11:23 PM, Cybes said:

I've met Pyne (briefly, admittedly) and he is indeed thoroughly punchable.

What was he like in person?

 

 

13 hours ago, Kimmo said:

Here's why Labor is inherently better than the LNP - ask yourself which of the two a humanist would support.

If the option is whether they want to eat a steaming turd fresh out of a chihuahua or a doberman, the smart person avoids eating a turd sandwich of a false dichotomy altogether, IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, Nich... said:

What was he [Pyne] like in person?

 

"Punchable". 😜

 

No, seriously... The event was a small scale "town hall"-like event before Turnbull's turn at the musical Party Chair.  For most of the evening, he played "Political Officer" (think Red Oktober) keeping Turnbull on the Party line.  The brief rest of his appearance, used car salesman oily.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
59 minutes ago, Nich... said:

If the option is whether they want to eat a steaming turd fresh out of a chihuahua or a doberman, the smart person avoids eating a turd sandwich of a false dichotomy altogether, IMO.

How does that cute little analogy play out in the real world? Are you saying a smart person donkey votes? Because ranking two or more parties equal last has been counted as a donkey vote for quite some time now. 

 

So don't give me that shit, because anyone with major party candidates on their ballot has to pick a side if they want a say. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Kimmo said:

How does that cute little analogy play out in the real world? Are you saying a smart person donkey votes? Because ranking two or more parties equal last has been counted as a donkey vote for quite some time now. 

 

So don't give me that shit, because anyone with major party candidates on their ballot has to pick a side if they want a say. 

Well it's true you do have to give them an order *somewhere* on your ballot. But look at all the minor parties and independents getting traction and even seats now. It's become less of choice of the lesser of two evils. The problem is that a lot of the operations are mystery sandwiches in this analogy. It might be salad and it might be a severed human arm that hasn't been cooked properly. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, fliptopia said:

Well it's true you do have to give them an order *somewhere* on your ballot.

 

And if (a small if) no minor party or independent gets up, your vote goes to the side you've chosen. By all means, put the major parties last; it's what I tell everyone. 

 

But one of em deserves second last, and the other deserves dead last - no fucking question. 

Edited by Kimmo
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For the Federal Senate, at least, you can just not put a major party in your preferences at all.  It'd be pretty stupid and lead to a wasted/exhausted vote, IMO, but it's doable.

As a humanist, in most scenarios I'll probably support an ALP candidate over an LNP one.  But it doesn't make them my preferred candidate by a long shot, because their shit still mostly stinks, just in slightly more palatable ways on some issues.

And this is on broad policy objectives, and putting aside the realities of running a broad based political party that has to compromise every step of the way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
56 minutes ago, Nich... said:

For the Federal Senate, at least, you can just not put a major party in your preferences at all.  It'd be pretty stupid and lead to a wasted/exhausted vote, IMO, but it's doable.

 

/ Keeping in mind the Trump win, which every 'sane' person in the universe predicted would never in a million years happen ...

 

Just imagine the number of Aussies sooooooo fucking fed up with the the Coalition of Lib / Nat. and Labor suddenly casting their votes at Hansen and Clive ... I chose those two names, cos, imo, even the Greens have a bit of an unholy stink to them these days too ... 🙂

 

Edited by eveln

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×