-
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
Livers,
Are you against social justice (and socialism) or are you just trying to expose other posters as being hypocritical?
Have you ever considered that the taxation system is based on socialist principles?
Like most issues, there needs to be a balance.
Are you against social justice (and socialism) or are you just trying to expose other posters as being hypocritical?
Have you ever considered that the taxation system is based on socialist principles?
Like most issues, there needs to be a balance.
Liverpool said:
Liv you do not have to vote above the line, or follow the preference card below it. I for one don't do this because I have refused to endorse individuals I personally loathe. I know in the end we have a presidential style campaign, but we still vote for local members and its important to learn about your member and ensure they are good for the country.
I have voted against party's over the journey I support because of local members. One used "dodgy" tactics against his rivals, and another was lazy and incompetant. As such, I voted for someone better who best fit my preferences for policy moving forward.
Also you do not have to "vote" a preference at all.
Six can vote (1) Greens, and then (2) More Beer Party (they are real and I hope they run again, they are quite funny!), and then he can stop. No rule saying you have to allocate a preference to all candidates.
Disco08 said:
Six Pack said:
Well, am I wrong?
Are your homes filled with refugees, the homeless, and the less fortunate?
Would you sacrifice $10,000 of your salary/wage to help the less fortunate who are on unemployment benefits, pensions, and welfare?
Like I stated....it's very easy to say what the Government should do and what people in command of the economy should do to distribute the money out 'evenly', but at the end of the day, people will vote for the party that is in THEIR best interests over anything else.
The Socialist support I am reading is all very well and good as long as it doesn't affect YOUR hip-pocket.
Tiger74 said:
Tiger74,
I was under the impression that on one card, you had to mark all boxes 1-5 (the small card they give you)
On the other card (the big sheet)...you either put a "1" above the line and that was it (the preferences go to whoever the party has chosen, such as the Greens going to the ALP)........OR....you go below the line, and mark ALL the boxes to allocate your own preferences.
Marking just "1" and "2", I thought, was an invalid vote......I thought you had to mark ALL boxes if you are going to go below the line.
Liverpool said:Disco08 said:Six Pack said:
Well, am I wrong?
Are your homes filled with refugees, the homeless, and the less fortunate?
Would you sacrifice $10,000 of your salary/wage to help the less fortunate who are on unemployment benefits, pensions, and welfare?
Like I stated....it's very easy to say what the Government should do and what people in command of the economy should do to distribute the money out 'evenly', but at the end of the day, people will vote for the party that is in THEIR best interests over anything else.
The Socialist support I am reading is all very well and good as long as it doesn't affect YOUR hip-pocket.
And I guess you roam the Western Australian outback turning back asylum seekers!
rosy23 said:Well done nurses. :clap Now little Johnny scrap your workplace laws that resulted in their pay being docked 50% even though they worked full days. While you're at it reinburse them for the work they did yet had their money stolen
Maybe if the ALP state government did the right thing by the nurses to begin with, we wouldn't have a strike to begin with, eh?
Liverpool said:Maybe if the ALP state government did the right thing by the nurses to begin with, we wouldn't have a strike to begin with, eh?
No arguments from me Livers. As I've already said I judge things on their merits, not by the party involved, and I think it's a combined effort this time although the State Labor party have nothing to do with nurses who've worked full days having their pay docked by 50%. That's Johnny's doing and I don't see how it can be justified.
I get the distinct opposite opinion of you, rightly or wrongly, that you don't even weigh up the situation. If it's Liberals it's ok and if it's Labor you shoot it down in flames but in this instance things would be better if the Federal Govt didn't withhold their funding so we could all enjoy the quality of health care the nurses were fighting for.
You call Rudd the echo but I'm hearing a distinct echo in your posts and it's got an American accent just like Johnny's. :rofl
Liverpool said:
Good call mate. Just checked the AEC site to double check and you are right (I know they changed some stuff 1-2 elections ago, this may have been one).
Pity though, I don't see the purpose of the requirement, but them the rules.
rosy23 said:
If that is the case Rosy, why didn't you have a crack at BOTH parties in your initial post?
Why did you only have a crack at Howard?
I must have been out getting a beer when you posted your crack at the ALP State Government's handling of this.... :hihi
rosy23 said:
I have stated I am voting for the Libs in this election and have never hidden that fact......unlike yourself, who seems to have "memory failure" when it comes to who you voted for in the last election, and claims to be taking a 'balanced view' for this election, when all I have read is post after post criticising Howard, yet not one post criticising Rudd.
Is that a 'balanced view' and 'weighing up a situation'?
I think not.....more of a person who doesn't have the guts to come out and say who they are voting for....
Liverpool said:I think not.....more of a person who doesn't have the guts to come out and say who they are voting for....
Livers, when I was a kid there were certain things my parents told me you didn't ask other people. One was u didn't ask adults how old they were, you didn't ask people how much they got paid, or how much expensive things like houses, cars and jewellery cost and you didn't ask them who they voted for.
Something to do with respecting other people's beliefs and privacy and also respecting the secret ballot box.
Nothing at all to do with people having or not having, as you quaintly like to put it, balls.
Six Pack said:
Firstly, as you have stated before.....I don't know you or anything about you (I only "know" you from the doctrine of your posts)....so who cares if on this forum people say who they are voting for?
What's the big deal?
You're voting Greens....has your life changed on thsi forum since you admitted that?
Of course not.
Secondly, you talk about respecting people's beliefs....yet people have crack after crack at me and the party I am voting for.
People like having shots but don't have the guts to cop a few shots back....they hide under this guise of a 'balanced view'.
What a load of crap!
Liverpool said:Well, am I wrong?
Are your homes filled with refugees, the homeless, and the less fortunate?
Would you sacrifice $10,000 of your salary/wage to help the less fortunate who are on unemployment benefits, pensions, and welfare?
Like I stated....it's very easy to say what the Government should do and what people in command of the economy should do to distribute the money out 'evenly', but at the end of the day, people will vote for the party that is in THEIR best interests over anything else.
The Socialist support I am reading is all very well and good as long as it doesn't affect YOUR hip-pocket.
You're wrong. The polls have continually shown that Australians want money put into infrastructure rather than tax cuts. There are plenty of charities that operate on peoples donations. Your mistake is you think people only value money for the material things it can get them. I'm quite happy to forego tax cuts and live with my beat-up 1989 car if it means a benefit for society as a whole. If it'll help get it through to you, you can view it as a preference for buying social justice with my taxes rather than buying a new car with my less-taxed salary. So you're wrong, my choice does affect my hip-pockect.
Are you sure you're not a Labor party member parodying the Libs trying to make them look worse than they are? 'Cos seriously, I find this persona you project very difficult to believe as a real person. I reckon you're playing games pretending to be more extreme than you are to see what sorts of arguments you can flush-out. But if I'm wrong, I seriously think you should have a chat to a mental health professional. A total lack of empathy for people is considered a disease.
Six Pack said:
Azza said:
I see the personal jibes are coming out now..... :hihi
Azza said:
Azza,
I agree with you that people would like to see infrastructure improved...whether that be roads, buildings, health, education, etc....but at the end of the day, most people don't want to lose anything themselves, in favour of giving it to anyone/anything else.
Why do you think the focus on interest-rates is so high on the agenda at the moment?
That is because people will be paying more on their mortgage rather than using that money on the "material things it can get them".
Secondly, having tax-cuts allows people to have that freedom to do what they want with their money. If they want to go and give it to a charity, or donate it to the les fortunate, than that is their business and good on them.
But what you are advocating is that the Government forgo tax breaks, and therefore deny people the right to do what they want with their money (buy things, take family on holidays, pay more off mortgage, donate to superannuation, give to chosen charities, etc)....in favour of the Government deciding for us what do with the money, and spending where they see fit.
Liverpool said:
If you want infrastructure improved, you have to pay taxes. The only reason the government can offer tax cuts is because it has let public infrastructure run down into a state of disrepair. If public infrastructure was maintained at an acceptable level and there is money left over, then tax cuts would be on the agenda. I think most people can see that as being reasonable.
