-
IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
At least you are following the consistent pattern of the cookers Tigaman.
Incoherent garbage.
I still have no idea what is BS in your opinion
? What I posted can’t be BS because it is 100% true
I posted elsewhere. But maybe this is the more appropriate thread.
Watching some of the media coverage around the intertwined NSW state election and NSW pokies lobby issues.
Can anyone tell me what is the actual raison d’être of the clubs in NSW? I don’t mean the original reason for being. That is obvious. They were RSL clubs, Rugby League Clubs, workers clubs, bowls clubs etc. But it’s like they have forgotten any actual practical reason for existence and now essentially exist to make money for the sake of building even larger suburban casinos to put even more pokies machines in, to make more money to build even bigger suburban casinos to fill with more pokies machines and the cycle goes on into perpetuity. They usually have a mutual ownership structure, owned by club members as far as I understand it. So it just doesn’t make sense.
Sure they give a few tax deductible scraps to fund community activities (community sport, charities) and cynically buy some reputation. Offer a few cheap meals and cheap access to the club’s gym and pool to get people through the door to play the pokies. And the sport of professional rugby league in NSW probably wouldn’t exist as we know it without the pokies subsidisation. But this still doesn’t account for the immense revenue. Nowhere near it.
Kind of reminds me of an autoimmune disease. Your immune system has an obvious original purpose, but outgrows it’s original purpose and starts to attack your body. Kind of what the clubs do to society.
Rumour has it, it was Clubs NSW digging up dirt that leaked the photos of a youthful Premier Perrottet in Nazi fancy dress, because he dare suggest a policy aimed at curtailing problem gambling (a very modest proposal in all reality). The gambling lobby in Australia is our political system’s NRA.
In Tasmania we have a relatively powerful pokies lobby. But it consists of one or two wealthy families who own all of the licenses, profiteering from it. Obviously totally distasteful. But at least I can understand it. Simple example of fat cats with questionable morals filling their greedy pockets. But the mutuality of the clubs makes me scratch my head as to what the mission really is. Perhaps they don’t even know themselves. Or are there shady people who have muscled their way into the clubs movement siphoning off large chunks under the table?
Watching some of the media coverage around the intertwined NSW state election and NSW pokies lobby issues.
Can anyone tell me what is the actual raison d’être of the clubs in NSW? I don’t mean the original reason for being. That is obvious. They were RSL clubs, Rugby League Clubs, workers clubs, bowls clubs etc. But it’s like they have forgotten any actual practical reason for existence and now essentially exist to make money for the sake of building even larger suburban casinos to put even more pokies machines in, to make more money to build even bigger suburban casinos to fill with more pokies machines and the cycle goes on into perpetuity. They usually have a mutual ownership structure, owned by club members as far as I understand it. So it just doesn’t make sense.
Sure they give a few tax deductible scraps to fund community activities (community sport, charities) and cynically buy some reputation. Offer a few cheap meals and cheap access to the club’s gym and pool to get people through the door to play the pokies. And the sport of professional rugby league in NSW probably wouldn’t exist as we know it without the pokies subsidisation. But this still doesn’t account for the immense revenue. Nowhere near it.
Kind of reminds me of an autoimmune disease. Your immune system has an obvious original purpose, but outgrows it’s original purpose and starts to attack your body. Kind of what the clubs do to society.
Rumour has it, it was Clubs NSW digging up dirt that leaked the photos of a youthful Premier Perrottet in Nazi fancy dress, because he dare suggest a policy aimed at curtailing problem gambling (a very modest proposal in all reality). The gambling lobby in Australia is our political system’s NRA.
In Tasmania we have a relatively powerful pokies lobby. But it consists of one or two wealthy families who own all of the licenses, profiteering from it. Obviously totally distasteful. But at least I can understand it. Simple example of fat cats with questionable morals filling their greedy pockets. But the mutuality of the clubs makes me scratch my head as to what the mission really is. Perhaps they don’t even know themselves. Or are there shady people who have muscled their way into the clubs movement siphoning off large chunks under the table?
Last edited:
Ok, ladies and germs, hold onto your hats. Remember where you were when you read this because it's the first and possibly the last time I'm going to say something positive about a Coalition politician.
Andrew Hastie, Shadow Defence Minister. I heard him talking to Patricia Karvelas on RN Breakfast this morning. I missed the start, so I didn't know who it was. He sounded reasonable and intelligent so I figured he was a government minister. Didn't sound like Marles so maybe assistant defence minister given they were talking about AUKUS.
But no. Hastie. Reasonable. Intelligent. Not hyper-partisan.
Is he lost? What possible future could he have in Dutton's Liberal Party?
Hopefully, for the nation's sake, the likes of Hastie are the future of the Liberal Party and the likes of Dutton are the last dying fart of the paleolithic sh!tc*nt era.
That'd be nice,
Andrew Hastie, Shadow Defence Minister. I heard him talking to Patricia Karvelas on RN Breakfast this morning. I missed the start, so I didn't know who it was. He sounded reasonable and intelligent so I figured he was a government minister. Didn't sound like Marles so maybe assistant defence minister given they were talking about AUKUS.
But no. Hastie. Reasonable. Intelligent. Not hyper-partisan.
Is he lost? What possible future could he have in Dutton's Liberal Party?
Hopefully, for the nation's sake, the likes of Hastie are the future of the Liberal Party and the likes of Dutton are the last dying fart of the paleolithic sh!tc*nt era.
That'd be nice,
He has openly stated his religious beliefs inform his views. He is an impressive speaker whenevr I have heard him.
Yeah, I just read that when looking into him further. That's a bit of a worry, especially because he's an evangelical. But he's no dummy.
Plus he joined the Liberal Party, so his judgement/values are immediately questionable.
Forget I said anything. Normal transmission resumed. He's obviously some kind of crook or uses The Handmaid's Tale as a guidebook.
Its a tactic -
Theyve been getting all bipartisan all week.
Morrison commended the PM, unconditionally, on 730 last night and didnt smarmily claim all Aukus cred.
The fact that Morrison even went on the ABC
Suggests some cynical *smile*-riddled party wide tactic.
Its possibly laying a foundation for a divisive NO voice campaign
'We have a proven record if bipartisanship with the govt, but....'
Theyre are all horrible *smile*, and if you start thinking otherwise,
Your either 1. Wrong or 2. ill
Speaking of whom, how the hell did that flake get a spot on The 7.30 Report last night?!
Keating killing it today. A bipartisan dismantling of both parties on the submarine detail and foreign policy in general.
We had Paul Keating, and we traded him in for John Howard. That's like trading Dustin Martin for Mike Sheahan's old jockstrap.
Unfair. I'm sure at some point Sheehan's old jockstrap was useful and served a purpose.
Howard served a purpose. He was useful for some. He also set the country back at least three decades.
Indeed.
Its fairly safe to assume a contrary position to Peter Dutton on anything,
And be on the correct side
