Politics

General Gibberish Forums The nickyd News Room
4344
Back in 2015, the electorate wanted Turnbull but a majority of the Libs wanted Abbott policies. The Libs got rid of Abbot, but bound Turnbull to Abbott's policies. Now the electorate has Turnbull with Abbott's policies, but have made it clear they're not happy with that. The Libs seem to have decided that the solution to their problem is to get rid of Turnbull (who was implementing Abbott's policies), and replace him with someone more like Abbott, who will implement policies very close to Abbott's.

Do you think it’s ever occurred to them that it’s the policies that are the problem?

Interesting. As usual and in unison with your Labour disciples on this site, are you aware that Liberal have won the last 2 elections? The Labour victory before that was on a knife edge and won on a disgraceful lie around doing a deal with the Greens to implement a carbon tax when it was promised not to do so.

Clearly there is a political party with bigger “problems” than the Liberals.

You guys will keep being staggered when people like Trump win simply because you close out everything else outside of your lefty bubble.


Are you saying the Libs are just dandy?

What farkin bubble is that you’re in?

They are Labor’s worst revisited. Lies, lies, power, backflips, pm knifing and now sniping sitting pm. I’m not Labor but you are farkin rusted on right.

Once again, dyslexia amongst lefties appears to be rampant. Read the last line again.


Seems to be a common symptom with a few of them.

Oh, I think he got the part where werewolf called him a deluded moron.
I realise you think that’s some sort of point, rather than just rude.

4345
Back in 2015, the electorate wanted Turnbull but a majority of the Libs wanted Abbott policies. The Libs got rid of Abbot, but bound Turnbull to Abbott's policies. Now the electorate has Turnbull with Abbott's policies, but have made it clear they're not happy with that. The Libs seem to have decided that the solution to their problem is to get rid of Turnbull (who was implementing Abbott's policies), and replace him with someone more like Abbott, who will implement policies very close to Abbott's.

Do you think it’s ever occurred to them that it’s the policies that are the problem?

Interesting. As usual and in unison with your Labour disciples on this site, are you aware that Liberal have won the last 2 elections? The Labour victory before that was on a knife edge and won on a disgraceful lie around doing a deal with the Greens to implement a carbon tax when it was promised not to do so.

Clearly there is a political party with bigger “problems” than the Liberals.

You guys will keep being staggered when people like Trump win simply because you close out everything else outside of your lefty bubble.


Are you saying the Libs are just dandy?

What farkin bubble is that you’re in?

They are Labor’s worst revisited. Lies, lies, power, backflips, pm knifing and now sniping sitting pm. I’m not Labor but you are farkin rusted on right.

Once again, dyslexia amongst lefties appears to be rampant. Read the last line again.

Pretty sure I just acknowledged the poor form of a left govt followed by right doing the same. Can you please explain why the Libs are ok to you?

Once again, dyslexia amongst lefties appears to be rampant. Read the last line again.

In an effort to try and stop me just needing to cut and paste the same line again and again, where did I say they were ok?

4346
One thing about Dutton is that he'll make Abbott seem like a genial, nice guy.

That would then give me 4 major parties I wouldn’t vote for under any circumstances.

Sorry…5…wasn’t counting the Nationals, but living in regional Victoria, albeit a Liberal electorate, means you’ve got to count them.

4347

I have dyslexia as i read the whole post.

In some ways I do have an issue for doing that fwiw.

4348
Not more of this nonsense, Trump is such a mythological beast that can't be explained in any other way than that he's a hero representing a groundswell of the under trodden and forgotten people and we all better sit up and take notice. If I don't believe so I live in a leftist bubble, that will be used in all arguments for the next 4 years to show how stupid I am.

Do you muppets realise Trump was representing the god damn REPUBLICAN PARTY, its hardly a freakin fringe group.

Post WW 11there has been 19 US elections for 10 republican and 9 democrat wins. Only once has there been a party win 3 times in a row, Reagan twice then Bush. Going by that, its pretty ■■■■■■ probable that republicans should have been expected to win.

Trumps win was not out of the ordinary, in fact if republicans had put up a normal candidate they would have romped home. Stop with this nonsense already!

Not out of the ordinary but everyone was picking Clinton…
Can you give me a definition of something that isn’t ordinary then?

A:The greens winning.

The republicans winning when there are more,
a) republican congressmen
b) republican senators
c) republican governors
d) republican controlled state legislatures
Is not out of the ordinary in fact it’s pretty much business as usual.

Trump had a come from behind win no doubt, but he was behind solely by his own doing. Republicans expected to win, before Trump was nominated and nearly blew it.

4349
Not more of this nonsense, Trump is such a mythological beast that can't be explained in any other way than that he's a hero representing a groundswell of the under trodden and forgotten people and we all better sit up and take notice. If I don't believe so I live in a leftist bubble, that will be used in all arguments for the next 4 years to show how stupid I am.

Do you muppets realise Trump was representing the god damn REPUBLICAN PARTY, its hardly a freakin fringe group.

Post WW 11there has been 19 US elections for 10 republican and 9 democrat wins. Only once has there been a party win 3 times in a row, Reagan twice then Bush. Going by that, its pretty ■■■■■■ probable that republicans should have been expected to win.

Trumps win was not out of the ordinary, in fact if republicans had put up a normal candidate they would have romped home. Stop with this nonsense already!

BUT BUT FIGHTING THE ELITES!
4350

Have a listen to Malcolm Roberts questions on Muslims at Senate Estimates now - Senate Legal Constitutional Affairs. Dept immigration and border protection is on.

Lots of questions about why Muslims are coming into the country?

http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Parliament

4351

If we can’t kill it we’ll just turn it into us.

Coalition handpicks mining lobbyist for ABC board position

Government bypasses independent nomination panel to announce Vanessa Guthrie for vacancy

Amanda Meade

Monday 27 February 2017 17.40 AEDT
Last modified on Monday 27 February 2017 18.08 AEDT

The Coalition has handpicked Western Australian mining lobbyist Vanessa Guthrie to sit on the ABC board, bypassing the independent nomination panel.

Guthrie is the chair of the Minerals Council of Australia and until December was managing director of uranium developer Toro Energy.

Along with Queensland rural leader and businesswoman Georgina Somerset, Guthrie has been appointed by the government to sit on the ABC board for a period of five years.

But unlike Somerset who was put on a shortlist by the independent nomination panel, Guthrie was chosen directly by the government, which is allowed under the legislation but is not common practice.

“Dr Guthrie also participated in the nomination panel process and whilst not on the panel’s final list of recommendations, was identified by the government as having the requisite skills to be a suitable appointment to the board,” a statement from the communications minister, Mitch Fifield, said.

“The government thanks the nomination panel for its work undertaking the selection process and providing a list of nominees for the government’s consideration.

“I congratulate Dr Guthrie and Ms Somerset on their appointments and look forward to seeing the valuable contributions they will make to the ABC board.”

The managing director of the ABC Michelle Guthrie – no relation to Vanessa Guthrie – is expected to face Senate estimates on Tuesday ahead of a major restructure of the ABC to be announced next week.

Last year Vanessa Guthrie told the Australian Financial Review she was concerned about social activists who want to stop development.

“[The east coast] is severely under attack from social activism,” she said. “It needs all the help it can get. But it means that the rest of the minerals industry gets somewhat tarnished by the coal debate and I think unfairly. I think coal is under attack unfairly so, even though I am a very strong advocate of clean energy and renewables, but coal has a role as does uranium and nuclear power.”

She also targeted activists who used social media to get their message across.

“Every social activist uses a mobile phone and tweets,” she said. “Where do you think a mobile phone comes from?” she asks. “Sixty-one minerals are in a mobile phone. Sixty-one different elements that the world mines to produce mobile phones are in there. Without mining you wouldn’t have an iPhone. And how do you think it gets powered?”

The nominations panel is appointed by the prime minister’s department and is tasked with conducting a selection process based on merit and providing the communications minister with a shortlist of three candidates for each position.

The Australian’s conservative columnist Janet Albrechtsen was replaced on the panel last year by public relations executive Anne Fulwood. The nomination panel is currently working on a replacement for the chair of the ABC Jim Spigelman.

Emeritus Prof Sally Walker and the former managing director of Medibank Private George Savvides were also appointed to the board of the SBS for a period of five years.

4352

Have a listen to Malcolm Roberts questions on Muslims at Senate Estimates now - Senate Legal Constitutional Affairs. Dept immigration and border protection is on.

Lots of questions about why Muslims are coming into the country?

http://www.aph.gov.au/News_and_Events/Watch_Parliament

Get a transcript of this. Unbelievable.

Why are we letting in Muslims?

Muslims overwhelmingly make up the majority of those incarcerated.

Muslims come here and breed resulting in more Muslims.

4353
Ah, nice to know you can criticise a government department, but, they may release your records...

Wait for the “She would have nothing to worry about if she has nothing to hide”.

■■■■■■ reprehensible.

4354
Ah, nice to know you can criticise a government department, but, they may release your records...

Wait for the “She would have nothing to worry about if she has nothing to hide”.

■■■■■■ reprehensible.

Again, I have no problem with a government department correcting false claims against them.
If that’s all they’re doing.

4355
I have dyslexia as i read the whole post.

In some ways I do have an issue for doing that fwiw.

Sorry…

4356
I have dyslexia as i read the whole post.

In some ways I do have an issue for doing that fwiw.

What does DNA stand for?
National Dyslexia Association.

I’ll get my coat.

4357
One thing about Dutton is that he'll make Abbott seem like a genial, nice guy.

That would then give me 4 major parties I wouldn’t vote for under any circumstances.

Sorry…5…wasn’t counting the Nationals, but living in regional Victoria, albeit a Liberal electorate, means you’ve got to count them.

There are 5 major Parties ?

I know of two !

4358
One thing about Dutton is that he'll make Abbott seem like a genial, nice guy.

That would then give me 4 major parties I wouldn’t vote for under any circumstances.

Sorry…5…wasn’t counting the Nationals, but living in regional Victoria, albeit a Liberal electorate, means you’ve got to count them.

There are 5 major Parties ?

I know of two !

The gap seems to be closing by the week.

4359
I can't see how releasing a users details, no matter what or how sensitive they are perceived, builds trust with a government department that is supposed to support people. If they are fighting a battle for credibility with the larger public, they are doing the wrong thing by their clients to do so.

It’s not just about the reputation of the department.
It’s also about the staff, and I guess their families.
They already have a tough and thankless job (and I thought bacchus’s appraisal of them was particularly unfair), they already know the department’s munted, for them then to read that uncorrected story and have others talk to them with ideas formed over that uncorrected story, when they know it’s garbage (and they Would know…they’d hear about the case manager and the calls made over a process that actually went right for a farking change)…
What, so they all have to just wear it?

No.
This is exactly why this exception to privacy laws exist.
Always in response, once a case has been made public by the client, and only enough information to correct the record.

To what end and for what purpose though?

Just staff wellbeing? Do the staff feel ok giving personal details over for publishing?

Wouldn’t the question be more likely now that the thousands of other complaints are legit as they weren’t questioned?

Is the info correct and will it always be or is there some tactic that a machine of government like this is trying to make people aware of?

Just struggle to see it (from the outside admittedly though)

The situation where I became aware that this happens (extremely rarely, and after a good deal of debate at various levels, just as it was in this case) was where the institution had a terrible and well-deserved previous reputation.
Unscrupulous journalists later thought, ‘this is good copy’ and ran unverified claims pretty much daily.

And I can tell you it does work.
It is worthwhile.
The staff are absolutely fine with it, and pleasantly surprised that the Minister seems to actually give a stuff about the grunts after all.

As to your point about the correctness of the information, well I guess at that point the client looks to their legal options.
Obviously that’s not ideal for anyone, but because people are usually less complete idiots than they’re given credit for, you’ve already had a lot of people going…
"I have three questions.

  1. Are you sure this is right?
  2. Are you absolutely positive this is right and we’re not going to publish incorrect information.
  3. No, really…Is there any possible way that this information might not be correct? Because if it’s not then clear your friggin’ desk."

Yeah I get that. It would bring some relief and you’d think they’d have this one right.

Still don’t think it’s Ok ethically/morally even if legally. Looks like it’s off to the Feds now though.

4360
I can't see how releasing a users details, no matter what or how sensitive they are perceived, builds trust with a government department that is supposed to support people. If they are fighting a battle for credibility with the larger public, they are doing the wrong thing by their clients to do so.

It’s not just about the reputation of the department.
It’s also about the staff, and I guess their families.
They already have a tough and thankless job (and I thought bacchus’s appraisal of them was particularly unfair), they already know the department’s munted, for them then to read that uncorrected story and have others talk to them with ideas formed over that uncorrected story, when they know it’s garbage (and they Would know…they’d hear about the case manager and the calls made over a process that actually went right for a farking change)…
What, so they all have to just wear it?

No.
This is exactly why this exception to privacy laws exist.
Always in response, once a case has been made public by the client, and only enough information to correct the record.

To what end and for what purpose though?

Just staff wellbeing? Do the staff feel ok giving personal details over for publishing?

Wouldn’t the question be more likely now that the thousands of other complaints are legit as they weren’t questioned?

Is the info correct and will it always be or is there some tactic that a machine of government like this is trying to make people aware of?

Just struggle to see it (from the outside admittedly though)

The situation where I became aware that this happens (extremely rarely, and after a good deal of debate at various levels, just as it was in this case) was where the institution had a terrible and well-deserved previous reputation.
Unscrupulous journalists later thought, ‘this is good copy’ and ran unverified claims pretty much daily.

And I can tell you it does work.
It is worthwhile.
The staff are absolutely fine with it, and pleasantly surprised that the Minister seems to actually give a stuff about the grunts after all.

As to your point about the correctness of the information, well I guess at that point the client looks to their legal options.
Obviously that’s not ideal for anyone, but because people are usually less complete idiots than they’re given credit for, you’ve already had a lot of people going…
"I have three questions.

  1. Are you sure this is right?
  2. Are you absolutely positive this is right and we’re not going to publish incorrect information.
  3. No, really…Is there any possible way that this information might not be correct? Because if it’s not then clear your friggin’ desk."
4361
I can't see how releasing a users details, no matter what or how sensitive they are perceived, builds trust with a government department that is supposed to support people. If they are fighting a battle for credibility with the larger public, they are doing the wrong thing by their clients to do so.

It’s not just about the reputation of the department.
It’s also about the staff, and I guess their families.
They already have a tough and thankless job (and I thought bacchus’s appraisal of them was particularly unfair), they already know the department’s munted, for them then to read that uncorrected story and have others talk to them with ideas formed over that uncorrected story, when they know it’s garbage (and they Would know…they’d hear about the case manager and the calls made over a process that actually went right for a farking change)…
What, so they all have to just wear it?

No.
This is exactly why this exception to privacy laws exist.
Always in response, once a case has been made public by the client, and only enough information to correct the record.

To what end and for what purpose though?

Just staff wellbeing? Do the staff feel ok giving personal details over for publishing?

Wouldn’t the question be more likely now that the thousands of other complaints are legit as they weren’t questioned?

Is the info correct and will it always be or is there some tactic that a machine of government like this is trying to make people aware of?

Just struggle to see it (from the outside admittedly though)

4362
I can't see how releasing a users details, no matter what or how sensitive they are perceived, builds trust with a government department that is supposed to support people. If they are fighting a battle for credibility with the larger public, they are doing the wrong thing by their clients to do so.

It’s not just about the reputation of the department.
It’s also about the staff, and I guess their families.
They already have a tough and thankless job (and I thought bacchus’s appraisal of them was particularly unfair), they already know the department’s munted, for them then to read that uncorrected story and have others talk to them with ideas formed over that uncorrected story, when they know it’s garbage (and they Would know…they’d hear about the case manager and the calls made over a process that actually went right for a farking change)…
What, so they all have to just wear it?

No.
This is exactly why this exception to privacy laws exist.
Always in response, once a case has been made public by the client, and only enough information to correct the record.

4363

I think the problem here arises from whether CentreLink itself even gave a shitt about the story/it’s reputation, or whether the Gov directed the release of private info in order to save themselves from the POLITICAL fallout over their half baked implementation of the clearly flawed Debt recovery program.