pink poodle
気が狂っている男
Ahhhh. I knew it was a joke, but I thought you had some special new dirt that gave it humorous value. When it's just regular business that we have become accustomed to it looses a touch of its shine.
The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.
- Thread starter johnny
- Start date
Just to be a total pedant - effectiveness is an element of political competancy. You can't be politically competant without being effective. Being effective is an outcome of doing a good job, or being competatnt at your job. Unfortunately he's failed to bring the right wing of his party along (or crush them like an insect) and his leadership was so ineffective that in the last election he had to campaign for Abbott, his #1 enemy (shorten is probably about #4) because he desparately needed the seat. If he was a competant leader he wouldn't have had to do that.
First, purge your enemies. Then, purge your friends. Anyone who is in power owes their position to you because you put them there. If you had not put them in power they would not have power. They remain in power because you want them to remain in power. Should they not please you in any way, you can rremove them from power with no risk to your own power.
This is competancy, this is power, this is how a king crushes his enemies until all bow before him.
The heavens shall tremble.
k, I'll stop now.
First, purge your enemies. Then, purge your friends. Anyone who is in power owes their position to you because you put them there. If you had not put them in power they would not have power. They remain in power because you want them to remain in power. Should they not please you in any way, you can rremove them from power with no risk to your own power.
This is competancy, this is power, this is how a king crushes his enemies until all bow before him.
The heavens shall tremble.
k, I'll stop now.
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
I think you mean crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and hear the lamentation of the women.
John U
MTB Precision
Is it not better to die on your feet than live on your knees?
The things Turnbull has implemented don’t seem to be things he cared about before he became pm. Either he is a hollow man or he’s implementing others directives against his will. What’s the point of leading if that’s all you’re doing?
I’d think the public would’ve preferred a Malcolm Turnbull who went down in flames attempting to implement what they thought was important to him. Doing so may have even changed his fortunes.
Not sure if that represents crushing your enemies, but it’s sticking to what you believe in.
The things Turnbull has implemented don’t seem to be things he cared about before he became pm. Either he is a hollow man or he’s implementing others directives against his will. What’s the point of leading if that’s all you’re doing?
I’d think the public would’ve preferred a Malcolm Turnbull who went down in flames attempting to implement what they thought was important to him. Doing so may have even changed his fortunes.
Not sure if that represents crushing your enemies, but it’s sticking to what you believe in.
Calvin27
Eats Squid
I heart Putin too
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
Tumble is...underwhelming.
I think Dutton has made it clear that if Turdball fucks up, they'll send him to one of the liberal party off shore concentration camps.
I think Dutton has made it clear that if Turdball fucks up, they'll send him to one of the liberal party off shore concentration camps.
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
Today's SMH has a little story about the recent election in Azerbaijan. A few Australian MPs helped with observing and one of them has made some interesting comments. Craig Kelly seems to believe this was a very democratic event...he hopes to bring some of the lessons learned home for us all to benefit from. Comments from the other Australian delegates are absent.
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
Oh Barnaby! You just keep on delivering...
pink poodle
気が狂っている男
I'm wondering if the team behind Keating the Musical might be up for making Barnaby the Musical? Gathering the stories from that phone call to John Howard to his eventual clownish demise.
link1896
Mr Greenfield
That poor lady, loving such an evil narcissist. She will be a right train wreck in a decades time.
scblack
Leucocholic
I do very much like this:
David Leyonhjelm: 'when I step out of my suite, it’s game on'
My workplace is a tranquil place, where work colleagues strive towards a common purpose in an environment of mutual respect.
I am talking, of course, of my electorate office and my suite in Parliament House.
But outside my electorate office and suite in Parliament House, it’s a jungle. I’m surrounded by people who are indifferent, or outright antagonistic, to the Liberal Democrats and our vision of smaller government and more freedom.
So, when I step out of my suite in Parliament House, it’s game on.
For those who have called on me to use polite language with my work colleagues and treat them with respect, rest assured that I do. You won’t hear any reports from my office about staff being sworn at, forced to pick up my dry cleaning or told to clean up my pets’ faeces.
But let me be clear: Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is not my work colleague; she is my opponent. We strive for opposing things. If I can inhibit her from achieving her political goals I will.
We face off in the Senate chamber just as bitter enemies face off on opposing sides in a court. And, just like opposing sides in a court, it is my role to ruthlessly tear down the other side’s case using all the tools of argument.
Where I can point out the other side’s double standards and inconsistencies, I do. Where it is effective to argue by example or pose rhetorical questions, I do.
A judge sets the rules for the proceedings in a court, just as the President does in the Senate. I conduct myself according to those rules, as evidenced by the fact that my conduct has never been called into question. In contrast, the Senate chair has requested Senator Hanson-Young to withdraw her comments on more than a dozen occasions since I became a senator.
It is a fundamental tenet of Western liberal democracy that the proceedings in court and in parliament are open to the public. But that does not mean that such proceedings should be expected to be as genteel as afternoon television. If you don’t want to hear an argument between people who don’t like each other, don’t tune in.
Proceedings in court and in parliament are meant to be heated. After all, in Western liberal democracies, such proceedings are the only legitimate method to sort out serious differences. We use words where others use violence, so those words will often be confronting and harsh. This is particularly the case in countries that draw on the traditions of Westminster and the common law, where courts and parliaments are adversarial by design.
Many of those who call on parliamentarians to be more courteous towards each other also call on them to agree with each other. This would make sense if there were a universally acknowledged truth about what are the best policies, such that there would be no role for anyone who wanted to deviate from that righteous path. But there is no truth about what are the best policies; it is the process of argument that provides our best hope of arriving at the truth.
So when the Greens respond to violence in our streets and our homes with a catch-all call for men to respect women, I will instead go after the individual perpetrators and support the right of would-be victims to be allowed to defend themselves.
When the Greens call for open borders and welfare support for all who would wish to come to Australia, I will instead call for immigration focussed on productive and skilled workers who have no need of welfare and a generous but orderly refugee intake.
When the Greens call for politically incorrect speech to be unlawful and for politically incorrect speakers to be banned from visiting our shores, I will instead advocate for free speech and the right to fight speech I don’t like with more speech.
When the Greens defend subsidies for renewables that ramp up electricity prices and fail to prompt the rest of the world to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, I will instead push the case for a level playing field for all forms of energy and acceptance of nuclear power.
And when the Greens call for your every need to be provided through a government program and for your every vice to be stamped out through taxation – be it alcohol, tobacco or sugar – I will instead suggest that Australians are adult enough to make their own decisions on most matters.
On the odd occasion I will get worked up and it seems that only those moments will be covered by the media. That’s fine; I’ll take what I can get.
David Leyonhjelm is a Senator for the Liberal Democrats.
From SMH: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...of-my-suite-it-s-game-on-20180725-p4ztge.html
David Leyonhjelm: 'when I step out of my suite, it’s game on'
My workplace is a tranquil place, where work colleagues strive towards a common purpose in an environment of mutual respect.
I am talking, of course, of my electorate office and my suite in Parliament House.
But outside my electorate office and suite in Parliament House, it’s a jungle. I’m surrounded by people who are indifferent, or outright antagonistic, to the Liberal Democrats and our vision of smaller government and more freedom.
So, when I step out of my suite in Parliament House, it’s game on.
For those who have called on me to use polite language with my work colleagues and treat them with respect, rest assured that I do. You won’t hear any reports from my office about staff being sworn at, forced to pick up my dry cleaning or told to clean up my pets’ faeces.
But let me be clear: Senator Sarah Hanson-Young is not my work colleague; she is my opponent. We strive for opposing things. If I can inhibit her from achieving her political goals I will.
We face off in the Senate chamber just as bitter enemies face off on opposing sides in a court. And, just like opposing sides in a court, it is my role to ruthlessly tear down the other side’s case using all the tools of argument.
Where I can point out the other side’s double standards and inconsistencies, I do. Where it is effective to argue by example or pose rhetorical questions, I do.
A judge sets the rules for the proceedings in a court, just as the President does in the Senate. I conduct myself according to those rules, as evidenced by the fact that my conduct has never been called into question. In contrast, the Senate chair has requested Senator Hanson-Young to withdraw her comments on more than a dozen occasions since I became a senator.
It is a fundamental tenet of Western liberal democracy that the proceedings in court and in parliament are open to the public. But that does not mean that such proceedings should be expected to be as genteel as afternoon television. If you don’t want to hear an argument between people who don’t like each other, don’t tune in.
Proceedings in court and in parliament are meant to be heated. After all, in Western liberal democracies, such proceedings are the only legitimate method to sort out serious differences. We use words where others use violence, so those words will often be confronting and harsh. This is particularly the case in countries that draw on the traditions of Westminster and the common law, where courts and parliaments are adversarial by design.
Many of those who call on parliamentarians to be more courteous towards each other also call on them to agree with each other. This would make sense if there were a universally acknowledged truth about what are the best policies, such that there would be no role for anyone who wanted to deviate from that righteous path. But there is no truth about what are the best policies; it is the process of argument that provides our best hope of arriving at the truth.
So when the Greens respond to violence in our streets and our homes with a catch-all call for men to respect women, I will instead go after the individual perpetrators and support the right of would-be victims to be allowed to defend themselves.
When the Greens call for open borders and welfare support for all who would wish to come to Australia, I will instead call for immigration focussed on productive and skilled workers who have no need of welfare and a generous but orderly refugee intake.
When the Greens call for politically incorrect speech to be unlawful and for politically incorrect speakers to be banned from visiting our shores, I will instead advocate for free speech and the right to fight speech I don’t like with more speech.
When the Greens defend subsidies for renewables that ramp up electricity prices and fail to prompt the rest of the world to cut their greenhouse gas emissions, I will instead push the case for a level playing field for all forms of energy and acceptance of nuclear power.
And when the Greens call for your every need to be provided through a government program and for your every vice to be stamped out through taxation – be it alcohol, tobacco or sugar – I will instead suggest that Australians are adult enough to make their own decisions on most matters.
On the odd occasion I will get worked up and it seems that only those moments will be covered by the media. That’s fine; I’ll take what I can get.
David Leyonhjelm is a Senator for the Liberal Democrats.
From SMH: https://www.smh.com.au/politics/fed...of-my-suite-it-s-game-on-20180725-p4ztge.html
Calvin27
Eats Squid
I was a greens voter up to the end of bob brown days. I agree with him, does this make me a liberal now. I've heard the general trend is people tend to vote towards the right as they age.
This is a massive bullshit straw man he’s built, though:
Many of those who call on parliamentarians to be more courteous towards each other also call on them to agree with each other.
I’m no fan of SHY but her actions don’t excuse his. He can also jam his attempt to loosen gun regulation up his arse.
Many of those who call on parliamentarians to be more courteous towards each other also call on them to agree with each other.
I’m no fan of SHY but her actions don’t excuse his. He can also jam his attempt to loosen gun regulation up his arse.
scblack
Leucocholic
Replying to the highlighted section: I have heard similar tendency, that young people are more likely to vote towards left/socialist ideals. Personally I never understood that idea, as I would think that a young person can support themselves but then as they age, would be more likely to be worried about needing more welfare in old age, and be more left leaning.
Its good to hear people are able to allow someone to say something that may "offend" somebody - and not be overly worried about that. It creates good debate and open exchange of ideas. Being too PC can sanitise things too much.
scblack
Leucocholic
Question time is not the place to be formulating policy or agreeing upon future actions. Its the time for people to seek answers about proposed policy - and I EXPECT that to be a heated time. If it was not heated, both sides are not really doing their job I would say.
If you are saying that people are using this time to overly politicise questions and ideologies then I'll agree.
Yes, I realize that is not where policy is made, it’s where it is debated and voted on. But the Dorothy Dixers, the level of much of the debate and the conduct of some of the people (Pauline Hanson wearing a burka, the two libs in Vic lying about their pairing, ALP putting a disgraced former Lib as Speaker, etc) is what I’m getting at.
It’s supposed to be a place of debate but it is often a place of cheap political point scoring, attempts to trap opponents and achieve media grab zingers.
Not to say that’s what all Q time is, I listen to it a bit and there is often very informed discussion. However, I often wonder what the point of the debate is when they have to vote along party lines anyway and a lot of policy is developed based on focus groups, polling and how things can be spun.