2022 Election

Tried to cover a few points there, maybe not as clear or concise as I would like, but 3 plus hours in surf this morning and a tad rooted!

indo-dreaming wrote:

Her recent videos aren't bad though
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDOXDX3KlKk

I agree ID. Those Hanson vids are good. They should be. Seems she's forking out a good chunk of change.

And she's pretty late to the party really. Finally listened to one of James Ashby's bright young staffers who her gave the teacher a lesson of her own in "the sort of narrative the Right has made its own in recent years: “It’s just a bit of fun. You snowflakes take everything too seriously. Lighten up.”

And conveniently, the owners of Stepmates, the company who take the purported six figures from One Nation to produce the videos, are of course, "centrists, we take from the left, we take from the right, we make fun of ourselves, we make fun of everyone.”

Which all sounds very similar in attitude to the discordant and rambling streams of conscience served up by Swellnet's resident above it all nihilist. Maybe he is Stepmates? Or then again, is he (it?) merely an avatar - just another another creation from Swellnet's own animator of a series within the series? All too meta for me.

https://www.smh.com.au/culture/tv-and-radio/pauline-hanson-as-a-superher...

@ Andy

Borders are everything as we have been reminded during Covid, the whole refugee issue is complex and been talked about at length here but, It was actually Keating that introduced Mandatory detention of asylum seekers/refugees/unlawful arrivals in the early 90s

Keating didn't make up the problem just like Howard didnt, Howard just happened to be in government (1996 to 2007) when the things really became an issue, and no it wasn't just because of wars, there has always been wars/conflict and refugees, it was also the effect of technology that has made traveling easier and cheaper and sharing of information much easier, the internet and mobil phones just added fuel to the fire in he really 2000's

Cheers Rocker, interesting read, thats why they are pretty decent they aren't just a home made low budget thing.

"Borders are everything as we have been reminded during Covid," Ummm, we don't have any borders. Never have had borders. We're an island. USA has a border, with Mexico. Another one with Canada. Name a country we border.
See, it's this "fresh frozen genuine imitation leather friendly fire" semantic spin that dumbs down the already mentaly challenged voters of Oistraya

Sheepdog wrote:

"Borders are everything as we have been reminded during Covid," Ummm, we don't have any borders. Never have had borders. We're an island. USA has a border, with Mexico. Another one with Canada. Name a country we border.
See, it's this "fresh frozen genuine imitation leather friendly fire" semantic spin that dumbs down the already mentaly challenged voters of Oistraya

Offcourse we have borders we have both state borders and international borders, just because our international borders aren't land borders doesn't mean they aren't borders.

We even have things like a Border protection bill https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/bd/bd010...

and an Australian border force https://www.abf.gov.au

The countries we share borders with are, New Zealand, Indonesia, East Timor, Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, and New Caledonia (France).

You have said some brain dead things Sheep dog but this one really takes the cake.

Settle down info-numpty your clown-in-chief hasn’t called the election yet and “it’s not a race”.

"Offcourse we have borders we have both state borders and international borders, just because our international borders aren't land borders doesn't mean they aren't borders."

WTF has state borders got to do with your "keeping borders safe" stuff"? It's all about international. You are mistaking "MARITIME BOUNDARIES", which mark the beginning of INTERNATIONAL WATERS, with "borders"

Ha ha nice back peddling there, you should own it instead dude, even the government call them borders.

Dont worry we all have brain fades and post stupid things sometimes.

Another example, if you have issues with the term i guess you can send Australian border force or the government an Email and tell them borders must be dry.

https://www.abf.gov.au/about-us/what-we-do/border-protection/maritime

“WTF has state borders got to do with your "keeping borders safe" stuff"? It's all about international. You are mistaking "MARITIME BOUNDARIES", which mark the beginning of INTERNATIONAL WATERS, with "borders" “

Nah, not clear enough sheepdog; unsurprisingly straight through to the keeper!

Come on Indo - you and that other bloody numpty Stan Grant who don’t understand the definition of borders, or the extra significance they’ve taken on of late.

‘This is about sovereignty. The cornerstone of sovereignty is borders. If a nation cannot defend its borders, it is not a nation….

John Howard captured it simply when he said "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come".

Howard's poll numbers were sagging in the lead up to an election, then he blocked from entry to Australia Afghan refugees rescued at sea by the Norwegian freighter the Tampa.
Howard's popularity rose. Strong borders are traditionally strong politics in Australia. Being an island nation makes it especially so.’

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-09/novak-djokovic-covid-tennis-and-b...

Territorial Sea Baseline

The term Territorial Sea Baseline (TSB) refers to the line from which the seaward limits of Australia's Maritime Zones are measured. These include the breadth of the territorial sea; the seaward limits of the contiguous zone, the exclusive economic zone and, in some cases, the continental shelf.

The territorial sea baseline may be of various types depending upon the shape of the coastline in any given locality:

The Normal baseline corresponds with the low water line along the coast, including the coasts of islands. Under the Convention, normal baseline can be drawn around low tide elevations which are defined as naturally formed areas of land surrounded by and above water at low tide but submerged at high tide, provided they are wholly or partly within 12 nautical miles of the coast. For Australian purposes, normal baseline corresponds to the level of Lowest Astronomical Tide (LAT).
Straight baselines are a system of straight lines joining specified or discrete points on the low-water line, usually known as straight baseline end points. These may be used in localities where the coastline is deeply indented and cut into, or where there is a fringe of islands along the coast in its immediate vicinity.
Bay or river closing lines are straight lines drawn between the respective low-water marks of the natural entrance points of bays or rivers.
Waters on the landward side of the baseline are internal waters for the purposes of international law.

Coastal Waters (3 nautical mile limit)

Coastal Waters is a belt of water between the limits of the Australian States and the Northern Territory and a line 3M seaward of the territorial sea baseline*. Jurisdiction over the water column and the subjacent seabed is vested in the adjacent State or Territory as if the area formed part of that State or Territory. This, and other arrangements for the management of offshore resources such as fisheries and petroleum, are defined by the Offshore Constitutional Settlement (OCS). The principal legislation implementing the OCS (Coastal Water (State Powers) Act 1980, Coastal Waters (State Title) Act 1980, Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Powers) Act 1980 and the Coastal Waters (Northern Territory Title) Act 1980) entered into force in January 1982 and February 1983.

* The TSB used to determine Coastal Waters does not include low tide elevations greater than 3M from the coastline or islands.

Territorial Sea (12 nautical mile limit)

The Territorial Sea is a belt of water not exceeding 12M in width measured from the territorial sea baseline. Australia's sovereignty extends to the territorial sea, its seabed and subsoil, and to the air space above it. This sovereignty is exercised in accordance with international law as reflected in the Convention. The major limitation on Australia's exercise of sovereignty in the territorial sea is the right of innocent passage for foreign ships. The territorial sea around certain islands in the Torres Strait is 3M.

Contiguous Zone (24 nautical mile limit)

The Contiguous Zone is a belt of water contiguous to the territorial sea, the outer limit of which does not exceed 24M from the territorial sea baseline. In this zone, Australia may exercise control necessary to prevent and punish infringement of its customs, fiscal, immigration or sanitary laws and regulations within its territory or territorial sea.

Exclusive Economic Zone (200 nautical mile limit)

The Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) is an area beyond and adjacent to the territorial sea. The outer limit of the exclusive economic zone cannot exceed 200M from the baseline from which the breadth of the territorial sea is measured. In the EEZ, Australia has sovereign rights for the purpose of exploring and exploiting, conserving and managing all natural resources of the waters superjacent to the seabed and of the seabed and its subsoil together with other activities such as the production of energy from water, currents and wind. Jurisdiction also extends to the establishment and use of artificial islands, installations and structures, marine scientific research, the protection and preservation of the marine environment, and other rights and duties.

indo-dreaming wrote:

@ Andy

Borders are everything as we have been reminded during Covid, the whole refugee issue is complex and been talked about at length here but, It was actually Keating that introduced Mandatory detention of asylum seekers/refugees/unlawful arrivals in the early 90s

Keating didn't make up the problem just like Howard didnt, Howard just happened to be in government (1996 to 2007) when the things really became an issue, and no it wasn't just because of wars, there has always been wars/conflict and refugees, it was also the effect of technology that has made traveling easier and cheaper and sharing of information much easier, the internet and mobil phones just added fuel to the fire in he really 2000's

My recollection is that the intervention in Afghanistan and later Iraq exacerbated the issue/ problem????
Fraser handled the Vietnamese issue in a very different way, but I guess the world had changed..
Anyway, I appreciate living in a country that accepts many people from many different places and I hope this continues in a harmonious manner.
I have fears it may not, and the Hanson style video adds to these concerns....

The majority of our sea borders do adjoin international waters , however some also adjoin other countries and territories. They include New Zealand (between Norfolk Isl and North Is) , New Caledonia , Soloman Islands , Timor-Leste , PNG and Indo.

I should have read those earlier posts before I got boundaries/borders crossed., but yeah I was referring to the EEZ boundaries , the definition of a territorial border is a little different. my bad.

but to that ..
"Although in some countries the term maritime boundary represents borders of a maritime nation[3] that are recognized by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea, maritime borders usually serve to identify the edge of international waters." (which would include the EEZ ?)

"The terms boundary, frontier and border are often used as if they were interchangeable, but they are also terms with precise meanings.[6]

A boundary is a line. The terms "frontier", "borderland" and "border" are zones of indeterminate width. Such areas forms the outermost part of a country. Borders are bounded on one side by a national boundary.[7] There are variations in the specific terminology of maritime boundary agreements which have been concluded since the 1970s. Such differences are less important than what is being delimited.[8]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maritime_boundary#:~:text=Although%20in%20....

This discussion is bordering on the absurd. Don't you guys have any boundaries? It's all Scotty's fault. End of story.

This thread is going to be fantastic when Scomo gets reelected.

Roker wrote:

Come on Indo - you and that other bloody numpty Stan Grant who don’t understand the definition of borders, or the extra significance they’ve taken on of late.

‘This is about sovereignty. The cornerstone of sovereignty is borders. If a nation cannot defend its borders, it is not a nation….

John Howard captured it simply when he said "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come".

Howard's poll numbers were sagging in the lead up to an election, then he blocked from entry to Australia Afghan refugees rescued at sea by the Norwegian freighter the Tampa.
Howard's popularity rose. Strong borders are traditionally strong politics in Australia. Being an island nation makes it especially so.’

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-09/novak-djokovic-covid-tennis-and-b...

Im a it confused by your post, the intro seems like you are saying i dont understand the importance of borders but I 100% agree with the rest of your post, a country without borders isn't a country, borders are everything the most important factor for any country.

And ensuring control of borders is super important.

andy-mac wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

@ Andy

Borders are everything as we have been reminded during Covid, the whole refugee issue is complex and been talked about at length here but, It was actually Keating that introduced Mandatory detention of asylum seekers/refugees/unlawful arrivals in the early 90s

Keating didn't make up the problem just like Howard didnt, Howard just happened to be in government (1996 to 2007) when the things really became an issue, and no it wasn't just because of wars, there has always been wars/conflict and refugees, it was also the effect of technology that has made traveling easier and cheaper and sharing of information much easier, the internet and mobil phones just added fuel to the fire in he really 2000's

My recollection is that the intervention in Afghanistan and later Iraq exacerbated the issue/ problem????
Fraser handled the Vietnamese issue in a very different way, but I guess the world had changed..
Anyway, I appreciate living in a country that accepts many people from many different places and I hope this continues in a harmonious manner.
I have fears it may not, and the Hanson style video adds to these concerns....

Just for the record i have no issue with immigration even our current immigration rates, i just thought the cartoon was a great representation of the politics around it, and tied in the fire at old parliament house perfectly.

indo-dreaming wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

@ Andy

Borders are everything as we have been reminded during Covid, the whole refugee issue is complex and been talked about at length here but, It was actually Keating that introduced Mandatory detention of asylum seekers/refugees/unlawful arrivals in the early 90s

Keating didn't make up the problem just like Howard didnt, Howard just happened to be in government (1996 to 2007) when the things really became an issue, and no it wasn't just because of wars, there has always been wars/conflict and refugees, it was also the effect of technology that has made traveling easier and cheaper and sharing of information much easier, the internet and mobil phones just added fuel to the fire in he really 2000's

My recollection is that the intervention in Afghanistan and later Iraq exacerbated the issue/ problem????
Fraser handled the Vietnamese issue in a very different way, but I guess the world had changed..
Anyway, I appreciate living in a country that accepts many people from many different places and I hope this continues in a harmonious manner.
I have fears it may not, and the Hanson style video adds to these concerns....

Just for the record i have no issue with immigration even our current immigration rates, i just thought the cartoon was a great representation of the politics around it, and tied in the fire at old parliament house perfectly.

Ah ok, point taken.
I just get triggered by Pauline I guess... Haha.
Seriously though I do believe she is dangerous and stirs up the dark toxic side of some...

indo-dreaming wrote:

Roker wrote:

Come on Indo - you and that other bloody numpty Stan Grant who don’t understand the definition of borders, or the extra significance they’ve taken on of late.

‘This is about sovereignty. The cornerstone of sovereignty is borders. If a nation cannot defend its borders, it is not a nation….

John Howard captured it simply when he said "we will decide who comes to this country and the circumstances in which they come".

Howard's poll numbers were sagging in the lead up to an election, then he blocked from entry to Australia Afghan refugees rescued at sea by the Norwegian freighter the Tampa.
Howard's popularity rose. Strong borders are traditionally strong politics in Australia. Being an island nation makes it especially so.’

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-01-09/novak-djokovic-covid-tennis-and-b...

Im a it confused by your post, the intro seems like you are saying i dont understand the importance of borders but I 100% agree with the rest of your post, a country without borders isn't a country, borders are everything the most important factor for any country.

And ensuring control of borders is super important.

Sorry for confusion ID, I know bugger all about borders, I read what you wrote, it seemed reasonable to me, you looked to copping a bit of flack, I'd read that Stan Grant article, who I think is certainly most qualified to talk about borders - and I was just pointing out, a little sarcastically, that he was thinking along the same lines as you.

Anyway, as Djokovic settles into his berth in first class, and perhaps rocks himself to sleep wondering about the nature of God like powers and contemplates just when and how he became a clear and present danger to public order and and a threat to the health of the nation, Howard's words could be ringing in his ears.

And if there was any doubt, the current incumbent and his immigration minister are happy to develop the theme, “I welcome the decision to keep our BORDERS strong and keep Australians safe... Strong BORDERS are fundamental to the Australian way of life... Our government has always understood this and has been prepared to take the decisions and actions necessary to protect the integrity of our BORDERS. Australia’s strong BORDER protection policies have kept us safe during the pandemic... Strong BORDER protection policies are also fundamental to safeguarding Australia’s social cohesion... Australia has been able to commence a step-by-step, safe reopening of its international BORDER..."

Think we get the message.

https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/sport/tennis/social-cohesion-pm-and-min...

So the anti vaxxers are furious their idiot hero has been deported by scumo and co. Come Election Day a shitload of them will vote Clive or one nation and then pass their votes on to the people who deported Novak.
If these people stood by their convictions they rip up their ballots in disgust.

yep,, that's what Clive is there for -- to be a stooge for the LNP and feed the loony reactionaries vote back to the LNP

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jan/20/scott-morrison-pr...

Again Scomo demonstrating he does not have a farking clue....
What a clown. Anyone who had ever been near a warehouse knows this is next level stupid....
What's next? Fast tracking some year 12 students to be heart surgeons.

andy-mac wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jan/20/scott-morrison-pr...

Again Scomo demonstrating he does not have a farking clue....
What a clown. Anyone who had ever been near a warehouse knows this is next level stupid....
What's next? Fast tracking some year 12 students to be heart surgeons.

I can see where you’re coming from Andy , there does seem to be some strange rules around ages for certain things though . When you look at kids that grow up on farms , they operate a variety of potentially dangerous machines . The minimum age for solo pilot seems pretty young. The first pilot license you will need to obtain is a student pilot license. This license allows you to start your flight training. In Australia, the minimum age to fly solo is 15.
https://www.aviationfly.com › how-t...
How to Become a Pilot in Australia 2021 - Aviationfly

Supafreak wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2022/jan/20/scott-morrison-pr...

Again Scomo demonstrating he does not have a farking clue....
What a clown. Anyone who had ever been near a warehouse knows this is next level stupid....
What's next? Fast tracking some year 12 students to be heart surgeons.

I can see where you’re coming from Andy , there does seem to be some strange rules around ages for certain things though . When you look at kids that grow up on farms , they operate a variety of potentially dangerous machines . The minimum age for solo pilot seems pretty young. The first pilot license you will need to obtain is a student pilot license. This license allows you to start your flight training. In Australia, the minimum age to fly solo is 15.
https://www.aviationfly.com › how-t...
How to Become a Pilot in Australia 2021 - Aviationfly

Agree with all your points there Supa. My annoyance is that the warehousing issues are (hopefully) a short to medium term problem and will be no longer a major issue once the Omicron wave subsides.
It is not so much age that concerns me, but the time required in training for the operation of a fork lift. You cannot just give a couple of lessons and then let someone go. I worked at a Woollies distribution centre back in 90's and it was a very busy place and not a place for unskilled fork drivers. Basically to become a fork lift driver you had to get your initial experience loading pallets still using heavy machinery. Some kids could do it, but I would not have trusted myself doing it when I was 15!!
Think this was just another Scomo brainfart and he will be denying he said it by tomorrow morning.....

Well andy , brain fart is his specialty

https://m.

Yep, not a fan of Scomo....

I’m not a fan of ScoMo either but that video is gutter commentary lacking any substance at all.

Roystein wrote:

I’m not a fan of ScoMo either but that video is gutter commentary lacking any substance at all.

Please point out where he is wrong and where he is using gutter journalism?
Defamation law in Australia seems to be a joke, Dutton suing tweet? Porter?

Jordan seems to go hard on some but is telling the truth, hence his videos on Scomo, Palmer and Bruz are still there and he has not been bankrupted.... Seems luckily defence of truth still holds some value in Oz.

https://m.

https://m.

https://m.

Equating public slander and defamation and abuse (which is what trolling often is) and what the laws are designed to stop to quelling free speech is drawing a long bow
Not saying that we shouldn’t be wary of the current way our government are operating or any government for that matter, but I’m sorry this sort of rubbish that fills our online spaces doesn’t add anything to developing a mature and progressive social and political discourse that our flailing country so desperately needs.

Roystein wrote:

Equating public slander and defamation and abuse (which is what trolling often is) and what the laws are designed to stop to quelling free speech is drawing a long bow
Not saying that we shouldn’t be wary of the current way our government are operating or any government for that matter, but I’m sorry this sort of rubbish that fills our online spaces doesn’t add anything to developing a mature and progressive social and political discourse that our flailing country so desperately needs.

My main concern is the imbalance of power that some Australian's presently have under Australian law. Politicians being able to have the power and means by to sue someone making a Twitter comment (Dutton) with something they disagree with.
Online trolling is a big problem with kids( have worked in education and it is a serious matter) but weakening laws where politicians can chase down critics is a very slippery slope. My interpretation of the Jordie video is him calling this out, nothing much more or less. They (politicians) will not go after big media, but individuals that do not have the means or power to properly represent themselves...
In regards to Jordies; I believe he has to be extremely careful in this regard as he had obviously upset and had a go at some very powerful people. Honestly, I fear for his welfare in this regard

andy-mac wrote:

Roystein wrote:

Equating public slander and defamation and abuse (which is what trolling often is) and what the laws are designed to stop to quelling free speech is drawing a long bow
Not saying that we shouldn’t be wary of the current way our government are operating or any government for that matter, but I’m sorry this sort of rubbish that fills our online spaces doesn’t add anything to developing a mature and progressive social and political discourse that our flailing country so desperately needs.

My main concern is the imbalance of power that some Australian's presently have under Australian law. Politicians being able to have the power and means by to sue someone making a Twitter comment (Dutton) with something they disagree with.
Online trolling is a big problem with kids( have worked in education and it is a serious matter) but weakening laws where politicians can chase down critics is a very slippery slope. My interpretation of the Jordie video is him calling this out, nothing much more or less. They (politicians) will not go after big media, but individuals that do not have the means or power to properly represent themselves...
In regards to Jordies; I believe he has to be extremely careful in this regard as he had obviously upset and had a go at some very powerful people. Honestly, I fear for his welfare in this regard

Those with money will always have a better ability to sue that's just life, but slander and defamation also affects people with a public profile much much more than it affects some nobody that doesn't actual have a public profile to begin with.

And there is a big difference between criticism and just outright lies designed purely to defame a person.

IMHO politicians and even other people with a public profile take way too much shit, they should go hard after a few people that really stir up shit and make examples of them like Dutton has with that refugee advocate, these people seem to have a belief that they can say and do anything without consequence.

indo-dreaming wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

Roystein wrote:

Equating public slander and defamation and abuse (which is what trolling often is) and what the laws are designed to stop to quelling free speech is drawing a long bow
Not saying that we shouldn’t be wary of the current way our government are operating or any government for that matter, but I’m sorry this sort of rubbish that fills our online spaces doesn’t add anything to developing a mature and progressive social and political discourse that our flailing country so desperately needs.

My main concern is the imbalance of power that some Australian's presently have under Australian law. Politicians being able to have the power and means by to sue someone making a Twitter comment (Dutton) with something they disagree with.
Online trolling is a big problem with kids( have worked in education and it is a serious matter) but weakening laws where politicians can chase down critics is a very slippery slope. My interpretation of the Jordie video is him calling this out, nothing much more or less. They (politicians) will not go after big media, but individuals that do not have the means or power to properly represent themselves...
In regards to Jordies; I believe he has to be extremely careful in this regard as he had obviously upset and had a go at some very powerful people. Honestly, I fear for his welfare in this regard

Those with money will always have a better ability to sue that's just life, but slander and defamation also affects people with a public profile much much more than it affects some nobody that doesn't actual have a public profile to begin with.

And there is a big difference between criticism and just outright lies designed purely to defame a person.

IMHO politicians and even other people with a public profile take way too much shit, they should go hard after a few people that really stir up shit and make examples of them like Dutton has with that refugee advocate, these people seem to have a belief that they can say and do anything without consequence.

That’s a pretty scary wish ID

And is”these people think they can say and do anything without consequence” referring to Dutton Scummo Porter etc. Because not only are they doing that, they’re financially persecuting anyone who calls them out.

Not as great as you may think.

What’s next, Julian Assange. Lock up a guy for being a journalist. Cool?!

indo-dreaming wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

Roystein wrote:

Equating public slander and defamation and abuse (which is what trolling often is) and what the laws are designed to stop to quelling free speech is drawing a long bow
Not saying that we shouldn’t be wary of the current way our government are operating or any government for that matter, but I’m sorry this sort of rubbish that fills our online spaces doesn’t add anything to developing a mature and progressive social and political discourse that our flailing country so desperately needs.

My main concern is the imbalance of power that some Australian's presently have under Australian law. Politicians being able to have the power and means by to sue someone making a Twitter comment (Dutton) with something they disagree with.
Online trolling is a big problem with kids( have worked in education and it is a serious matter) but weakening laws where politicians can chase down critics is a very slippery slope. My interpretation of the Jordie video is him calling this out, nothing much more or less. They (politicians) will not go after big media, but individuals that do not have the means or power to properly represent themselves...
In regards to Jordies; I believe he has to be extremely careful in this regard as he had obviously upset and had a go at some very powerful people. Honestly, I fear for his welfare in this regard

Those with money will always have a better ability to sue that's just life, but slander and defamation also affects people with a public profile much much more than it affects some nobody that doesn't actual have a public profile to begin with.

And there is a big difference between criticism and just outright lies designed purely to defame a person.

IMHO politicians and even other people with a public profile take way too much shit, they should go hard after a few people that really stir up shit and make examples of them like Dutton has with that refugee advocate, these people seem to have a belief that they can say and do anything without consequence.

Was anything said untrue?
Think Dutton lost his in the total scheme of things as he makes up total mis-truths, black gangs, the boats the boats!! Etc.
Kind of strengthens my point re Jordan and Scomo. If not true sure Scomo would have taken him to court by now as Palmer would have.
Fark look at the shit Gillard got thrown at her, were you in the ring for her?

And Jordies can seem like a one eyed Labor cheer leader, but then....

https://m.

Anyone been paying attention to the Pray and Pushback event today. This online event involved speakers from across the political spectrum. Well not exactly. It had speakers from the religious right, the racist right, and the batshit crazy right. The event was organised by a pentecostal nutter and it's a major part of scumo's re-election strategy.
Our turd PM has no chance of winning the election by standing on his woeful record of incompetence and corruption. He has nothing to offer Labor voters and is losing small l voters (especially women) by the truckload. To make up for all the deserting voters, the LNP have jumped into bed with the nutter right in a desperate attempt to win over some labor voters via anti-vax anti-lockdown shitfuckery.
It's a bizarre dance routine going on. The batshit right (one nation, UAP, and "rogue" LNP MPs and senators) are speaking at rallies and just flat out campaigning for the idiot vote. Meanwhile Scumo is trying to play sensible Dad, appealing to mainstream Australia, without upsetting the idiot anti-vaxxers too much. He still needs their preferences. What do you think the Djokovic shitshow was all about.
His govt is that fucking useless and unelectable, the only chance of re-election is with the help from Palmer's and Hanson's anti-vax useful idiots. God help us if they are successful.

Gee, Vic, didn't realise a Federal Coalition govt had made your life so f...ing difficult and miserable. Maybe you could detail your tale of woe so that people in Tonga can send you some goodwill/funds to help you get through the difficult period until Labor wins the next election.

Cockee wrote:

Gee, Vic, didn't realise a Federal Coalition govt had made your life so f...ing difficult and miserable. Maybe you could detail your tale of woe so that people in Tonga can send you some goodwill/funds to help you get through the difficult period until Labor wins the next election.

They don't make my life miserable. They just make Australia more corrupt and less fair. I won the fucking lottery ticket being born white in middle class 1970s Australia. Any mug in my situation gets a very fair crack at life, but I want my taxes being spent giving others the same opportunities not being ripped off by millionaire scumbags who were private school chums with the minister.
Seriously Cockee. We could be so much more generous to Tonga, but you know, car parks in marginal electorates, and spending $30 mil on a $3mil block of land takes priority.

andy-mac wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

Roystein wrote:

Equating public slander and defamation and abuse (which is what trolling often is) and what the laws are designed to stop to quelling free speech is drawing a long bow
Not saying that we shouldn’t be wary of the current way our government are operating or any government for that matter, but I’m sorry this sort of rubbish that fills our online spaces doesn’t add anything to developing a mature and progressive social and political discourse that our flailing country so desperately needs.

My main concern is the imbalance of power that some Australian's presently have under Australian law. Politicians being able to have the power and means by to sue someone making a Twitter comment (Dutton) with something they disagree with.
Online trolling is a big problem with kids( have worked in education and it is a serious matter) but weakening laws where politicians can chase down critics is a very slippery slope. My interpretation of the Jordie video is him calling this out, nothing much more or less. They (politicians) will not go after big media, but individuals that do not have the means or power to properly represent themselves...
In regards to Jordies; I believe he has to be extremely careful in this regard as he had obviously upset and had a go at some very powerful people. Honestly, I fear for his welfare in this regard

Those with money will always have a better ability to sue that's just life, but slander and defamation also affects people with a public profile much much more than it affects some nobody that doesn't actual have a public profile to begin with.

And there is a big difference between criticism and just outright lies designed purely to defame a person.

IMHO politicians and even other people with a public profile take way too much shit, they should go hard after a few people that really stir up shit and make examples of them like Dutton has with that refugee advocate, these people seem to have a belief that they can say and do anything without consequence.

Was anything said untrue?
Think Dutton lost his in the total scheme of things as he makes up total mis-truths, black gangs, the boats the boats!! Etc.
Kind of strengthens my point re Jordan and Scomo. If not true sure Scomo would have taken him to court by now as Palmer would have.
Fark look at the shit Gillard got thrown at her, were you in the ring for her?

I say leave it up to the courts to decide what is untrue or not, not you or me.

As for Gillard she got it very soft compared to what Pauline has copped for about 25 years now and no its not just her views that are attacked so much of what is directed at her is misogynistic driven, i dont agree with half her views, but I have huge respect for her resilience and strength, most people (not just women) would have crumbled after a year or two with the shit she has had to take.

The reason I think more politicians don't go after guys like that completed and utter fuck witt labor stooge Jordie, is because doing so brings them attention and only boost their profile and sadly lots of people end up seeing them as the victims and the actual person being defamed as the bad guy, so would do them no favours politically, its fucking crazy.

As for Julien assange Soggy dog, he is in no way a journalist, personally it does my head in that he has been able to play the games he has and can avoid being sent to the USA to face the music.

The only real silver lining is his life is pretty much destroyed, fingers crossed he still ends up getting sent to the USA though.

Vic Local wrote:

Cockee wrote:

Gee, Vic, didn't realise a Federal Coalition govt had made your life so f...ing difficult and miserable. Maybe you could detail your tale of woe so that people in Tonga can send you some goodwill/funds to help you get through the difficult period until Labor wins the next election.

They don't make my life miserable. They just make Australia more corrupt and less fair. I won the fucking lottery ticket being born white in middle class 1970s Australia. Any mug in my situation gets a very fair crack at life, but I want my taxes being spent giving others the same opportunities not being ripped off by millionaire scumbags who were private school chums with the minister.
Seriously Cockee. We could be so much more generous to Tonga, but you know, car parks in marginal electorates, and spending $30 mil on a $3mil block of land takes priority.

Don't forget giving away $40 bil to profitable company's leaving the tax payers on the hook for and running the credit out to a trill will cause pain.

So we have now established that Vic's life is neither difficult nor (according to him but contrary to all evidence) miserable. Tongans, please send your prayers (no funds necessary unless you can't resist) to Vic via the Torquay post office.

indo-dreaming wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

Roystein wrote:

Equating public slander and defamation and abuse (which is what trolling often is) and what the laws are designed to stop to quelling free speech is drawing a long bow
Not saying that we shouldn’t be wary of the current way our government are operating or any government for that matter, but I’m sorry this sort of rubbish that fills our online spaces doesn’t add anything to developing a mature and progressive social and political discourse that our flailing country so desperately needs.

My main concern is the imbalance of power that some Australian's presently have under Australian law. Politicians being able to have the power and means by to sue someone making a Twitter comment (Dutton) with something they disagree with.
Online trolling is a big problem with kids( have worked in education and it is a serious matter) but weakening laws where politicians can chase down critics is a very slippery slope. My interpretation of the Jordie video is him calling this out, nothing much more or less. They (politicians) will not go after big media, but individuals that do not have the means or power to properly represent themselves...
In regards to Jordies; I believe he has to be extremely careful in this regard as he had obviously upset and had a go at some very powerful people. Honestly, I fear for his welfare in this regard

Those with money will always have a better ability to sue that's just life, but slander and defamation also affects people with a public profile much much more than it affects some nobody that doesn't actual have a public profile to begin with.

And there is a big difference between criticism and just outright lies designed purely to defame a person.

IMHO politicians and even other people with a public profile take way too much shit, they should go hard after a few people that really stir up shit and make examples of them like Dutton has with that refugee advocate, these people seem to have a belief that they can say and do anything without consequence.

Was anything said untrue?
Think Dutton lost his in the total scheme of things as he makes up total mis-truths, black gangs, the boats the boats!! Etc.
Kind of strengthens my point re Jordan and Scomo. If not true sure Scomo would have taken him to court by now as Palmer would have.
Fark look at the shit Gillard got thrown at her, were you in the ring for her?

I say leave it up to the courts to decide what is untrue or not, not you or me.

As for Gillard she got it very soft compared to what Pauline has copped for about 25 years now and no its not just her views that are attacked so much of what is directed at her is misogynistic driven, i dont agree with half her views, but I have huge respect for her resilience and strength, most people (not just women) would have crumbled after a year or two with the shit she has had to take.

The reason I think more politicians don't go after guys like that completed and utter fuck witt labor stooge Jordie, is because doing so brings them attention and only boost their profile and sadly lots of people end up seeing them as the victims and the actual person being defamed as the bad guy, so would do them no favours politically, its fucking crazy.

As for Julien assange Soggy dog, he is in no way a journalist, personally it does my head in that he has been able to play the games he has and can avoid being sent to the USA to face the music.

The only real silver lining is his life is pretty much destroyed, fingers crossed he still ends up getting sent to the USA though.

Got lots on today so will be brief, but 3 main points.
1. Hanson has always had a platform run on toxic negativity targeting minorities, whether indigenous Australians, Asians ( yes my family has contributed to the swamping), and Muslims. She has never had anything positive in any way to contribute to Australia or Australians and is a grifter of the highest order. Her own side went after he the hardest ie Abbott for which she did time. There is no comparison to Gillard who was our PM who for all her perceived faults tried to unite and improve the lot for Australians. Hanson actively seeks media attention such as Burka in parliament FFS. Not shedding a tear for her.

2. Yes let the courts decide, if Palmer or Scomo had a ice cube chance in hell of going after Jordies, they would have. Palmer sent him a legal notice which he humorously ripped apart. If interested, check Fatty McFuckhead.
Attacking the individual as a Labor stooge buy not being able to argue the points he brings up. I can understand a lot of people not liking his style and find him vulgar etc. But he does the research with help from other such as Michael West. When someone plays the man, not the ball you know they have lost the argument.

4. You ok with journalists/ individuals being indefinitely locked up by the state for reporting war crimes or whistle blowing? Then I can understand clearly how our view differs in how a free democratic country should look like. Assange did not commit any crime ..

indo-dreaming wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

indo-dreaming wrote:

andy-mac wrote:

Roystein wrote:

Equating public slander and defamation and abuse (which is what trolling often is) and what the laws are designed to stop to quelling free speech is drawing a long bow
Not saying that we shouldn’t be wary of the current way our government are operating or any government for that matter, but I’m sorry this sort of rubbish that fills our online spaces doesn’t add anything to developing a mature and progressive social and political discourse that our flailing country so desperately needs.

My main concern is the imbalance of power that some Australian's presently have under Australian law. Politicians being able to have the power and means by to sue someone making a Twitter comment (Dutton) with something they disagree with.
Online trolling is a big problem with kids( have worked in education and it is a serious matter) but weakening laws where politicians can chase down critics is a very slippery slope. My interpretation of the Jordie video is him calling this out, nothing much more or less. They (politicians) will not go after big media, but individuals that do not have the means or power to properly represent themselves...
In regards to Jordies; I believe he has to be extremely careful in this regard as he had obviously upset and had a go at some very powerful people. Honestly, I fear for his welfare in this regard

Those with money will always have a better ability to sue that's just life, but slander and defamation also affects people with a public profile much much more than it affects some nobody that doesn't actual have a public profile to begin with.

And there is a big difference between criticism and just outright lies designed purely to defame a person.

IMHO politicians and even other people with a public profile take way too much shit, they should go hard after a few people that really stir up shit and make examples of them like Dutton has with that refugee advocate, these people seem to have a belief that they can say and do anything without consequence.

Was anything said untrue?
Think Dutton lost his in the total scheme of things as he makes up total mis-truths, black gangs, the boats the boats!! Etc.
Kind of strengthens my point re Jordan and Scomo. If not true sure Scomo would have taken him to court by now as Palmer would have.
Fark look at the shit Gillard got thrown at her, were you in the ring for her?

I say leave it up to the courts to decide what is untrue or not, not you or me.

As for Gillard she got it very soft compared to what Pauline has copped for about 25 years now and no its not just her views that are attacked so much of what is directed at her is misogynistic driven, i dont agree with half her views, but I have huge respect for her resilience and strength, most people (not just women) would have crumbled after a year or two with the shit she has had to take.

The reason I think more politicians don't go after guys like that completed and utter fuck witt labor stooge Jordie, is because doing so brings them attention and only boost their profile and sadly lots of people end up seeing them as the victims and the actual person being defamed as the bad guy, so would do them no favours politically, its fucking crazy.

As for Julien assange Soggy dog, he is in no way a journalist, personally it does my head in that he has been able to play the games he has and can avoid being sent to the USA to face the music.

The only real silver lining is his life is pretty much destroyed, fingers crossed he still ends up getting sent to the USA though.

Assange is guilty of nothing but journalism. It baffles me how often you want to lay the boots in or find glee in the downfall in people who actually have your best interest and the interest of humanity at heart. While at the same time wishing for harsher more draconian actions to suppress any dissent, or now talking about government shitfuckery. What sort of country do you want to live in mate because it sounds a bit fucked?

Gillard was a good PM too. Hanson does not compare.

1. I dont agree, I think Pauline has brought up some real important issues through her political life i dont see her as either toxic or hateful she just isn't scared to say what she and many others think, not that i agree with everything she says, id say 50/50 but as far as strong women go, she has my respect there.

Multiculturalism can be a good thing, but it can also cause problems if not managed correctly.

Smart countries like Singapore have things like the ethic integration policy to ensure diversity in housing units etc

2. I dont agree just because they have a case doesn't mean they would bother, because it might not favour them politically and I'm sure most poltitians have enough on their plate

Each to their own, i just cant stand him, ive watched his videos before when people have posted them but wont anymore, if i bag him its not different to how others bag someone like Avi and wont watch his videos.

As for Julian Assange you guys are dreaming if you think he is a journalist, if he is so innocent he would have no issue facing the music in the USA, but the reality is he is a very serious criminal with at least 18 charges against him including espionage, conspiracy to commit espionage, theft or conversion of property belonging to the United States government, violation of the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act and general conspiracy.

And worst still when younger he had already been charged with similar things in Australia, so he really has no excuse, so should get no free pass at all.