matty wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:18pm:

Anyone who puts religion into politics, whether left or right, is extreme.  There's a reason that religion should stay out of politics.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:49pm:


You said you want the government to make a decision. They have decided not to change the law to allow it. Whatever their reasons or lack or reason may be, you have already got what you wanted.

Quote:


Gay marriage was not allowed before 2004.

Whatever the case, if you want to claim that most people are in support, why not test it? Why should any changes be made just because some people claim to speak for most people on this issue?

Quantum wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:58pm:


That is such a stupid statement - of course the reasons behind WHY my representatives want to or don't want to do something matter.  And if the reason is based on PERSONAL RELIGIOUS belief, as opposed to in the interest of the people they are meant to represent, then unfortunately that decision is VOID and NULL.   

Actually to implicitly stop gay marriage for the purposes of recognition of foreign marriages, and for the purposes of adoption (as well as to limit states allowing it in their laws), that's exactly what happened in 2004: gay marriage was banned.

So, why in 2004 it was "the will of the people" but now all of a sudden, on ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE, we need a plebiscite? F**k the plebscite, why do we need a plebiscite to prove majority support ON ONE PARTICULAR ISSUE? Because you lot know for a fact that your bigoted views are f**ked and the only way to continue to hold out accepting is to continue to come up with stupid reasoning?

If we need a plebiscite on this one issue, then we need a plebiscite ON EVERY bill that goes through government. It's the only thing that makes sense.  Especially when this issue enjoys majority support.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 3:09pm:


You are the one who said leave it up to the representatives and not ask the people. Well, that is exactly where we are now. The fact that you don't like the decision is actually irrelevant. There is no point screaming "null" and "void" because you didn't get your own way. You can't leave it up to the representatives then demand that they explain their reasons and have it approved by you first.   

Quote:


Because people like you claim this is what the people want. The biggest argument for it is that most people want it and it is only a few extreme rightwing religious loons that are against it. Yet, you don't want to actually test that. The representatives should just believe those who are for gay marriage when they claim that most people in the country are for gay marriage, and that it is the will of the people that they represent to have gay marriage. But don't test it, just believe us... . Just the paragraph before you said "in the interest of the people they are meant to represent" yet you seem shlt scared of those people letting their will be known.

matty wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:11pm:


Not on Q&A, which I always watch.

Some of her early performances as PM, I think, were a struggle: "the real Julia". Some of her pre-recorded messages to camera I recall being very patronizing, but I can't remember now what they were about.

Rudd, by contrast, was an automaton. His media coaching was obvious in his erratic hand gestures. He wasn't bad in the pre-recorded talking head stuff though. He did quite well with a script.

Gillard was the reverse. She was brilliant on the fly - she was on top of her briefs, gave detailed responses, and demonstrated a deep awareness of the issues - particularly economic issues.

What let her performance down, however, was her monotone delivery. She didn't change speed or pitch when she talked - it all came out in one long line - paced, polished.

With Gillard, we saw very little thinking. Gillard had an answer for everything - she was never ruffled. In the media, she was always polite. Compare this to Abbott, who thinks, stops, starts, and thinks again. This is not necessarily a weakness in Abbott's thinking style, but it's a weakness in his speaking style.

Likewise with Gillard - her performance did not demonstrate an ability to make better decisions, but it was an incredible skill. It did make her appear rather controlled, but they're all controlled. Gillard was an intelligent, organized and commanding personality. She was a brilliant communicator. She may well make a good academic. The writing and columns I've read of Gillard's were also good, although I'm not sure whether staffers wrote them. 

Although Gillard never showed an interest in discussing theory as PM, she clearly knows it, particularly on International Relations and the economy. She knew leaders can't appear to be smarty-pants - that people want leaders to be straight on their level.

This is Abbott's challenge. He likes grappling with ideas, but can't be seen to be fleshing them out - which is exactly what he does. People expect leaders to have all the answers, which is most unfair. Look at Hockey - he does well at looking human and falible. It's one reason we like him.

But he'll never make PM.

matty wrote on Feb 6^th, 2014 at 2:38pm:


Oh, I think Alan discusses two of these issues constantly too, Matty.

If necessary, he avoids the other one with a mute button.

Quote:


I've been doing some ad hoc research about him and on that point, it seems he was not so much of a grappler, rather, a challenger, and a deaf one.  He was always right, and the windmills were wrong.  The best illustration of that was his less than wonderful exit from the Seminary.  They did not do things the way he demanded.  He thought they - the Catholic Church - had to bow to his presence.  No prizes for anyone who works out who won that little confrontation.

He left the Seminary and was forced to beg for employment.