• 🇳🇿 🇲🇲 🇯🇵 🇨🇳 🇦🇺 🇦🇶 🇮🇳
    Australian & Asian
    Drug Discussion

    Welcome Guest!
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
  • AADD Moderators: andyturbo

Election 2007.

Status
Not open for further replies.
Chronik Fatigue said:
Yeah but the ALP has something called a left-wing and a caucus through which to influence the party, the chances of getting slightly more humane laws are much better under the ALP than the Coalition- period.
Click to expand...
My point exactly.
 
News - Outrage at Rudd's same-sex marriage stanceOPPOSITION

Leader Kevin Rudd has angered members of the gay community by saying he is opposed to homosexual marriage and refusing to be drawn on the question of gay couples adopting children.

"When it comes to the Marriage Act, that is the responsibility of the Federal Parliament," Mr Rudd said. "And the Marriage Act relates to a union between a man and a woman, and that remains Labor policy as it has been into the past and as it will remain into the future.

Australian Coalition for Equality spokesman Rodney Croome said the community was disappointed by Mr Rudd's comments.

Mr Croome said that partners in same-sex relationships would continue to be second-class citizens while they were denied the right to marry.

"It's disappointing that Kevin Rudd is not willing to reconsider this issue given that the most recent polling shows almost 60 per cent of Australians support same-sex marriage," Mr Croome said.

On gay adoption, Mr Rudd said such laws were governed by the states.

Journalists asked fruitlessly for Mr Rudd to state his personal view of gay couples adopting children. "As I said, these things are regulated by the states," he responded.

Asked repeatedly to declare his personal opinion, Mr Rudd refused.

"That is my view, and that's how I have responded," he said.

Mr Croome said Mr Rudd insisted that he would love one of his children equally if they came out as gay.

"So why can't he treat that child's love for their same-sex partner equally too?" he said.

Mr Croome said it was annoying that Mr Rudd could not provide any solid rationale for his party's position beyond "tradition" and what he said were some very misleading claims about practical problems in areas such as inheritance and social security.

"It was traditional for interracial marriages to be banned, but that didn't make it right," he said.

Mr Croome said there were no practical problems recognising the inheritance rights of same-sex partners in all eight states and territories.

He said Labor's policies on same-sex entitlements had improved significantly since the last federal election with a commitment to legalise equality for de facto same-sex couples and to having relationships registries in each state.

"Labor's current policy will address some of the deep disadvantage and discrimination which currently exists in Australian law," Mr Croome said.

"But even if Labor fulfils all of its promises it will still not be possible for same-sex partners to publicly and officially declare their love for each other in front of their family and friends, as they can in Canada, Britain, New Zealand and many other Western countries," he said.

"Labor is effectively saying same-sex couples can get on the bus, but we still have to sit at the back."

The age
Click to expand...

Both Howard and Rudd probably look in the mirror and see the other one staring back.

This is a disgrace! Just because a minority percent of Australian population are gay or lesbian, and therefore don't influence voting numbers, it disgusts me that in 2007 there is still OPEN discrimination from governments towards homosexuals!! ... I guess it has only been 15 years since homosexuality actually became legal in many States in Australia. Yet another reason to vote for neither of these gutless bigots.
 
Yeah I am getting more and more disgusted with Howard and am still to hear anything from Rudd other than gobbledegoop.

The Greens shit me to tears and to be hionest i would vote Labour or Liberal before voting for them.

There is no longer any alternative.
 
Are the LDP registered federally yet?

vote 1 loose gun laws, easy immigration & the free-est of free trade :)
 
^^ Just googled them, i misst say that was an education. it's interesting to see that US-style big 'L' libertarianism has arrived in Australia. Just out of interest, are they a WA phenomenon? I disagree with most of their economic policies but their approach to individual freedoms and liberty to be some what heartening. Although I shudder to think of the effects of some of their international monetary policies- just look where allowing the complete freedom of capital flow got places like se Asia and Argentina (ie. think complete economic meltdown). i don't think it is ever in the national interest to allow the very small, elite minority who control the financial industry unfettered access to manipulating the Australian economy like that. We would truly be at the mercy of unelected and unrepresentative bankers, who would have the power to derain the country of money and cripple the economy overnight (as what happened to Argentina).
 
MazDan said:
Yeah I am getting more and more disgusted with Howard and am still to hear anything from Rudd other than gobbledegoop.

The Greens shit me to tears and to be hionest i would vote Labour or Liberal before voting for them.

There is no longer any alternative.
Click to expand...
Just curious, why do you hate the greens so? I live with conservative parents and have conservative freinds so I've heard most of it before, it just interests me to why people are so affraid of voting for greens/alternative parties. :\

For me.. well There's no way I i would vote for the Greens in their current form if I thought they had even a slight chance at gaining power of this country - that would be insanity. I do vote Greens because they relate to me on issues which the Libs and Labor would never touch due largely because of their gutless vote chasing nature: Social Democracy, individual rights, a return to the ethos that money doesn't exactly mean happiness (a point that Howard is totally unfamilliar with), protection for those who need protection, the end of discrimination, funding for all levels of education, and a logical foreign policy.

Maybe it's something I'll grow out of (though I doubt it is) but I see every vote for a minor party as a kick up the next governments arse and a firm reminder that there is in fact a large percentage of Australias population who do want to see positive change on a range of important issues - environment, globalisation and its impacts on us, re-thinking of our allies, re-commitment to the principles this country was founded upon. Things like the Howard governments refusal to even admit to climate change being a scientific fact less than 3 years ago show oh so clearly how narrow his view is: "is it got something to do with the economy/my prospects for re-election? Well don't wast my time with it"! David Hicks is another example. Maybe the guy was a dirty terrorist who gave up on the west, however the denial of Habeus Corpus rights contravenes EVERY basis of our, and all western legal systems, from the last 200 years! Not to mention that our government had absolutley no power over the outcome, and when they eventually did, well, they didn't give two shits as usual.

These two issues are only a few examples of how the governments policy can chang due to pressure on the Libs to get with the program by third and fourth party votes and voices. People think that voting Greens/third party won't do any good, and in some instances of a landslide that is very true. However, when voting day comes and the votes have all been cast the winning prime minister is going to pick up the polling details and have a bit of a look see. If he see's that there has been a large percentage swing in favour of say the greens who campaigned on deforrestation he's sure to think twice the next time he goes green lighting the next $20bn pulp mill - no politician wants to be seen as not reacting to public concerns. The same is true if that same prime minister sees that a major cause for voting for a minor party has been because of issues of public freedoms i.e gay rights.

The Greens party is by no means perfect - a statement which I'm sure no other political party would ever say - , and it IS a political party after all, but compared to the identical twins running this November there is no other choice for me.
 
^^ well said.

Ill also be voting greens. But ill certainly be putting the ALP before the liberal party on my ballot form... dont forget about the order you put things guys... it can mean make and break!!!
 
And make sure to vote below the line!

I post this a lot but it sure is well reasoned out, so take time to read and consider it at least before dismissing the points:

A COMMENT ON RESPONSIBLE VOTING by Greg Graffin (March 2002)

"Voting is a privilege. As such it requires responsibility. Irresponsibility when coupled with licence can lead to social tragedy. If one is to feel good about his or her vote, it is necessary to have an agenda to use as justification, and also to adhere to some sort of ideological protocol for casting a particular vote. Too often in the past, our generation has voted and formed opinion based on self-serving interests. I know what is good for me, and I don't really care about what is good for others, I will vote for the candidate or issue that benefits me the most is a common way of thinking. This is an example of the simplest possible voting convention. It doesn't require much worldly knowledge or social concern, it is simply a selfish desire for personal gain. This will probably typify most people's thinking on their way to the polls this year, as it has in years past. But it does not make for a better society. Voting offers us a way to responsibly improve society. If you don't care about such a goal, then voting isn't a privilege for you, its just a routine behavior that happens every four years, or worse, a way to implement evil policies that further degrade the lives of the careless and powerless. If you don't care about improvement, you better hope that those who do go to the polls advocate your interests.

"Societal improvement is a somewhat nebulous concept because change is rarely teleological and it rests in the whims of the populace. Most people think that a candidate who wins an election can make the world a better place. This has rarely happened in history. It is the people, or the ruled, who make the world a better place by behavioral changes, and the ruler is usually only a by-product of this collective phenomenon. The process of voting, because it demands sharing of information, requires people to gain knowledge about their world. It offers an opportunity to question whether they accept the tenets of their representatives and of their society. When this occurs, people get informed, people can communicate their distastes, and their hopes. They feel useful and acknowledged by their fellow citizens. And through communication comes action, and eventual abatement of the stigmas that cause suffering and misery. An informed person is a content person. An informed society is a strong society, supportive of its citizens, aware of, and compassionate to those less advantaged. Finally, an informed vote is a responsible vote. It goes far beyond the election in question. The knowledge is carried through the life of the possessor, and it shapes the way that person views his/her position in society and communicates with others. All of this is a contribution to a better community and a more meaningful election.

AN UNORTHODOX PROTOCOL FOR CASTING A MEANINGFUL VOTE:

1. Determine whether you care about the general well-being of society (If you do not, skip to step 7, if you do, continue on).

2. Determine whether you are a privileged citizen (If you are not, then proceed to step number 6, if you are, read steps 3, 4, and 5 only).

3. Examine not how well you will fare if a given issue is voted into law, but how poorly the under-privileged will suffer (no matter which laws pass a vote or who is voted into office, you will probably always still be better off than the people you fear you'll become, namely the under-privileged).

4. Create an ideological balance-sheet that details how much better you will fare, as a percentage of your current comfort level, versus how much worse the under-privileged will drop in their current comfort level (for instance, as a very banal example, a mere 2% drop in your current income, could provide a tremendous relative rise in an under-privileged household's income).

5. Vote for the issue or candidate that promises to balance the disparity between the privileged and the under-privileged classes, even if it doesn't make you richer or if it provides a small compromise in your day-to-day comfort.

6. Vote for the issue or the candidate who will make your life better.

7. Abstain from voting.

"Finally, remember voting started out as a way for concerned citizens to play a role in creating a society that was good for all. Over time it evolved into the monstrosity it is today which is no more than a vehicle for selfish partisanism, and worse, a voice for those who want the law to preserve and increase the disparity between needy and privileged.

"This unfortunate turn of events has made us a hostile, hopeless people. We should remember that history is relevant, and can help us gain a perspective on our current situation. NO civilization persists without a strong sense of social welfare. The British empire expired once its subjects learned that through unity and enlightenment of the underprivileged came a new power structure and a new sense of national community, one strong enough to turn away any possible oppressors. We are headed in the same direction as the failed British empire as our privileged class increases in wealth yet shrinks in population, and our underclass grows in population and shrinks in wealth.

"Your vote is meaningless if it merely bolsters the selfish desires of a small privileged minority of citizens. A meaningful vote depends on the passage of issues or election of candidates that help to create a better scene for everyone, not merely the rich elite, and not merely provisional support for the poor. If you follow these guidelines, we will have a less polarized, more enthusiastic underclass, and a less greedy, more compassionate upper class; and the quality of our social fabric will be drastically enhanced."

http://www.musicforamerica.org/node/16695
Click to expand...
 
3. Examine not how well you will fare if a given issue is voted into law, but how poorly the under-privileged will suffer (no matter which laws pass a vote or who is voted into office, you will probably always still be better off than the people you fear you'll become, namely the under-privileged).

4. Create an ideological balance-sheet that details how much better you will fare, as a percentage of your current comfort level, versus how much worse the under-privileged will drop in their current comfort level (for instance, as a very banal example, a mere 2% drop in your current income, could provide a tremendous relative rise in an under-privileged household's income).

5. Vote for the issue or candidate that promises to balance the disparity between the privileged and the under-privileged classes, even if it doesn't make you richer or if it provides a small compromise in your day-to-day comfort.
Click to expand...
Things I've been trying to explain to my parents for EVER! Great link!
 
ilikeacid said:
Both Howard and Rudd probably look in the mirror and see the other one staring back.

This is a disgrace! Just because a minority percent of Australian population are gay or lesbian, and therefore don't influence voting numbers, it disgusts me that in 2007 there is still OPEN discrimination from governments towards homosexuals!! ... I guess it has only been 15 years since homosexuality actually became legal in many States in Australia. Yet another reason to vote for neither of these gutless bigots.
Click to expand...

yep, i thought rudd was the kind of christian that was christ like, obviously not. i wonder, will garrett turn into abbott too?
 
It depends on your electorate though really... somewhere really alternative, they might have a chance getting a seat!!!

Even still, put labor second, the vote will go to labor if there arent enough greens votes... thats how it works :)
 
raverchik said:
I am voting for the Greens, but really we may as well vote labour if we're going to do that....decisions..decisions..
Click to expand...
Not really..

True when preferences are decided for the lower house green votes preferencing labor will go to them. The upper house is a different story all together. It's worth voting them over Labor because of this. All legislation has to pass through BOTH houses of parliament to become law, this means if the Greens hold the balance of power, or even make up a larger proportion, legislation that the libs want to pass (i.e. ban on same sex marrige, stem cell research legislation, new laws regarding asylum seekers, constitutional amendments) will have to be voted on by Green senators :D - this could make a big difference if greens make up a large enough proportion of the Senate. Also as Taliana said, if you live in a place where a Greens member has a real shot at winning power, VOTE for them! Especially if you live in Tassie! Now thats a place where a large Greens majority could really show Australias future leaders that we truly value our environment!

Plus for me, as an ideological thing, I would never be happy with myself knowing I actually voted for Rudd :\
 
The failure of both sides of government to legalize homosexual marriage is positive discrimination, not negative. There is a reason that the family unit is based upon heterosexual marriage; for the creation of children. Being gay in Australia is now universally accepted; discrimination (genuine discrimination) is more or less unheard of.. is having the ability to live your lives together in peace not enough? half the folks on here say marriage as an institution is dead and irrelevant. yet because gays cant do it, suddenly it is massive issue. sounds like crying for the sake of crying. if you want to merge your finances, get civil unioned. my relative is civil celebrant. she joines gays all the time. if you find a way to pop a child out of your ass, i will support gay marriage to the full. but as its solely a financial or symbolic matter, fuck em.
 
^^^
dude, you're going to get burned so hard by others so i won't bother other than to say that to the best of my knowledge civil unions don't provide the same financial benefits. why should a man and woman coupling be granted better rights than that of a same sex pairing in a so-called democratic society? i ask cause you've such a hard-on for democracy
 
By now it should be blindingly obvious that the last thing I give a flying assfuck about is being "burned" by internet folk. They are entitled to express their opinion, i am entitled to rebute it with facts. as stated, the purpose of marriage is procreation. if gays evolve to procreate, i will support their endeavours 100%. did you read my post? it answered your question in the opening line. was there any point to your response? clearly not

I love the gays, they have made fabulous contributions to the society (especially fashion and the arts), they create a surplus of wives for me and my straight brethren, and offer many other benefits to Australian society. However, the nature of democracy is such that the lifestyle and culture of the majority takes priority, and allowing gays to marry each other is not compatible with that idealogy. It offers no benefit to society, and we have no obligation to destroy the very foundations of our culture for gays to save a few dollars at tax time

If i was a gay, i would be like, fuck it at least we are allowed to shag and kiss and do stuff without getting harassed, that is democracy and equality, violating a solemn institution created for the purpose of solidifying solid family relationships does not fall under that banner
 
Last edited:
Care to edit yourself again? I keep refreshing and you have changed what you have said. If you really didnt give a rats ass about what we think, then leave your original thoughts up, so people can argue with what you REALLY think.

What a tosser. theres so much there i can get fired up about but i cant be bothered to to someone like you.

My main point im gonna say here, is that the world is over fucking populated enough, the fact they cant procreate in my humble opinion, is actually doing the world a favour.

Anyhoo. Back to the election shall we.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top