-
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
t-rob said:
We get what we deserve..........for our leaders are but a reflection of our society.......self opinionated, greedy, shifty, "whats in it for me", "pass the buck", judgemental, larakinism, rude - have a look around that is a majority of the make up of our society today - we like to think different but the reality is there.
There is some philanthropy, kindness and politeness in Parliament also - just like there is in our society - shame it is in the minority...........
Six Pack said:
You said you are a Greens voter.
Bob Brown isn't happy with Rudd's agreeance with Howard on the idea that marriage is a union between man/woman only.
Yet your vote is going to go to Rudd, it seems:
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/10/24/8160_news.html
Your leader is a bit hypocritical, don't you think?
And what do you think of your vote going to the ALP, when you have stated before that you don't support Rudd?
This is for all posters to have a laugh....not too far off the mark actually...
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,22645597-661,00.html
Azza said::rofl If those 2 cracks were aimed at me Livers, they demonstrate 2 things:
1 - Your judgement of individual peoples background and motives is woeful. You should be aware of this failing before condemning people as you so frequently do;
2 - You have a narrow immediately materialistic frame of reference. This narrow-mindedness is not something to be proud of, but intellectually crippling.
The two cracks were aimed at people who come on here and constantly gripe and moan about people who have a few more $$$ than them, or people who have been lucky enough to inherit money, born into a rich family, or have actually worked hard to get where they are.
The two cracks were aimed at people who constantly show jealousy and envy, with some sort of notion that rich people should be paying for the 'unfortunate' of this world, and that everyone should be even.
It would be interesting if these posters won a few million dollars in lotto, and were forced to get taxed to the hilt to pay for everyone else out there, whether these posters would change their mentality towards rich people.
If you feel these two cracks were aimed solely at you, then you are wrong...but if you feel that you fit one of the above categories, and the cap fits...well...
Liverpool said:
I'm not sure what the point is yr trying to make re gay marriage. furthermore bob Brown isn't my 'leader'. I am voting for a local candidate. Morevoer, Ishall decide how my preferences are decided. I wont blindly follow a how-to-vote card.
Liverpool said:The two cracks were aimed at people who come on here and constantly gripe and moan about people who have a few more $$$ than them, or people who have been lucky enough to inherit money, born into a rich family, or have actually worked hard to get where they are.
The two cracks were aimed at people who constantly show jealousy and envy, with some sort of notion that rich people should be paying for the 'unfortunate' of this world, and that everyone should be even.
It would be interesting if these posters won a few million dollars in lotto, and were forced to get taxed to the hilt to pay for everyone else out there, whether these posters would change their mentality towards rich people.
If you feel these two cracks were aimed solely at you, then you are wrong...but if you feel that you fit one of the above categories, and the cap fits...well...
Well considering you addressed the post to me, it hardly suggests I went out of my way to fit myself in does it? :
But I see by the use of solely you were aiming it at me anyway. This completely incorrect judgement was after what 3 posts or so from me on this topic? Any person with a bit of self criticism would start to think about whether they have a tendancy to leap to conclusions, and adopt a more considered approach. That aint your style tho, is it?
You seem to think that those interested in social justice are only jealous of wealth. The social justice tradition is at least 2000 years old in western society, both within and outside christian thought, but all you can see is self-interest and jealousy. That says more about your perspective than theirs. Its through exploitation of people who think like you that Howard has maintained his grip on power, accelerating the break down of our civil society and the Australian ideal of egalitarianism.
Azza said:Liverpool said:The two cracks were aimed at people who come on here and constantly gripe and moan about people who have a few more $$$ than them, or people who have been lucky enough to inherit money, born into a rich family, or have actually worked hard to get where they are.
The two cracks were aimed at people who constantly show jealousy and envy, with some sort of notion that rich people should be paying for the 'unfortunate' of this world, and that everyone should be even.
It would be interesting if these posters won a few million dollars in lotto, and were forced to get taxed to the hilt to pay for everyone else out there, whether these posters would change their mentality towards rich people.
If you feel these two cracks were aimed solely at you, then you are wrong...but if you feel that you fit one of the above categories, and the cap fits...well...
Well considering you addressed the post to me, it hardly suggests I went out of my way to fit myself in does it? :
But I see by the use of solely you were aiming it at me anyway. This completely incorrect judgement was after what 3 posts or so from me on this topic? Any person with a bit of self criticism would start to think about whether they have a tendancy to leap to conclusions, and adopt a more considered approach. That aint your style tho, is it?
You seem to think that those interested in social justice are only jealous of wealth. The social justice tradition is at least 2000 years old in western society, both within and outside christian thought, but all you can see is self-interest and jealousy. That says more about your perspective than theirs. Its through exploitation of people who think like you that Howard has maintained his grip on power, accelerating the break down of our civil society and the Australian ideal of egalitarianism.
Bravo - well elucidated - we have lost what use to be Australia's fair-go helping hand attitude to life and one's countrymen.......
Six Pack said:
If you are voting Greens...then you are voting for Brown...and in turn, you are voting for Rudd.
You can bleat all you like about "I'm voting for a local candidate", but if that local candidate is part of the Greens, and Brown is the leader of the Greens, and he has said that those votes will go towards the ALP, then that's it:
GREEN'S leader Bob Brown looks set to block independent candidate Gavan O'Connor's electoral chances by preferencing Labor in Corio.
Labor sources claim that Labor negotiators and the Greens have already bedded-down an agreement which would see preferences go the way of Mr Marles in Corio.
Local Greens convener Bruce Lindsay said central party negotiators would obviously sign a deal which made sense for them.
http://www.geelongadvertiser.com.au/article/2007/10/24/8160_news.html
Azza said:
"Social justice" is another trendy term used to camouflage the real meaning and real doctrine.....that is "socialism"...where wealth is distributed amongst everyone.
You can't deny Azza, that in today's climate (and even Remote has whinged about this many times), that people do have a 'look after myself first and worry about others later' attitude, so of course when people start mentioning taxing rich people to the eyeballs, etc...then the first instinct is to assume that people are complaining because they feel their own life isn't as good as the Jones' next door. They are looking at this "social justice" as an excuse to have a crack at the rich and as a way of complaining about their own inadequacies and failings rather than worrying about all the poor people out there.
But let's assume that you and Remote are sincere in your concern about the exploitation of people.
What you are advocating is worse than a break down of our civil society...what you want to break down is the democratic freedom of people to make their own choices in life, be accountable for their own choices in life, and to stop people from being rewarded for showing effort and endeavour.
You not only want to punish successful people for making a difference in their lives and that of people around them...but you want to reward mediocrity and people who have not done anything.
Let's look at Paris Hilton.
Does she deserve all that money? Probably not.
Has she worked for that money? No.
Then you look at Joe Bloggs.
Did he deserve to be born with one leg? No
Does he deserve to be in a wheelchair all his life? Probably not.
Then you look at someone like John Ilhan....multi-millionaire, didn't drink, only 42 years of age....has a heart-attack and dies.
Yet I know someone who has smoked cigarettes and drunk alcohol for the last 50+ years, and is still going.
Luck of the draw....and that is the beauty of life....to borrow a line from Forrest Gump:
Life is like a box of chocolates... you never know what you're gonna get.
And I certainly don't want socialists trying to dictate not only where money should go, but start interfering into people's lives, and livelihoods.
What are you blathering about? My vote will go to the Greens and then i will direct my preferences. this doesnt necessarily mean i, or others, will direct them to the ALP.
If i wanted my vote to go directly to the ALP i would vote ALP.
The parliamentary party will elect its leader. i have no leader.
If i wanted my vote to go directly to the ALP i would vote ALP.
The parliamentary party will elect its leader. i have no leader.
Liverpool said:
You know Livers there are actually A LOT of people who have sincere compassion towards other people (or animals, or the environment etc) that comes before their own well being. They sacrifice a lot to help others and if more people in command of the country's wealth were like them others less fortunate may be better off. The above demonstrates not only that you are not one of them but also that you pretty much can't even comprehend others thinking differently to yourself.
Six Pack said:
That would be censorship - not freedom of speech - now you are showing your true colours
Disco08 said:
I'm not doubting people helping and sacrificing other humans, animals, or the environment....but it is natural instinct for people (and living things in general) to surivive themselves first, before helping others.
SixPack summed it up himself by him letting me use his PC to post on this forum....but he didn't go the whole way and sacrifice his computer by giving it to me. He looked after his own well-being first.....his concern for me came second.
It is the same with money and all this "social justice" rubbish you people are concerned about on this thread.
People vote for the party that is in THEIR best interests.
People don't care if poor Joe Bloggs with one leg is going to be $20 less off under Rudd, if they are going to get an extra $50 in the hip-pocket for themselves.
If you, Remote, and SixPack are so concerned about the less fortunate and are willing to sacrifice your own comforts for that of others, then all your houses should be filled with refugees and the homeless.
And why aren't they?
Because your own (and your immediate family's) well-being and lifestyle comes first.
Which makes a mockery and a joke of this hypocrisy that I am reading here.
From what I have read, if the Government and people in command of the $$$ in Australia sacrificed to help the less fortunate...then so they should....and you all wave your red flags in support.......but hey, as long they don't look in your direction, right?
Livers do you think the current welfare bill we pay is too high?I ask this because the governments are constantly tightening eligibility ,and to me it seems that the savings are really miniscule,and its all for show rather than anything concrete.
By the same token I'd imagine that corporate excesses are also high ,and yet we seem to have less governance in this area,in fact corporate watchdogs appear to have been removed and we have more of a self regulatory system.Isnt that a bit like having the wolves guard the sheep?
By the same token I'd imagine that corporate excesses are also high ,and yet we seem to have less governance in this area,in fact corporate watchdogs appear to have been removed and we have more of a self regulatory system.Isnt that a bit like having the wolves guard the sheep?
