General Political Chat

[Vader]

Do you think that's a bit excessive though, considering that there was a perfectly good office just down the road?

"Just down the road" being in a smaller town, 40 min down the road from where he wanted to be operating?

Why on earth should he be obliged to work out of Lambie's old office in the first place?

 

[nobbyiscool]

"Just down the road" being in a smaller town, 40 min down the road from where he wanted to be operating?

Why on earth should he be obliged to work out of Lambie's old office in the first place?

40 minutes is nothing; and you keep saying "smaller town", but the difference between Devonport and Burnie would be fairly negligible by the time you're adding quasi-satellite towns like Penguin and Wynyard that are within 15 minutes of Burnie.

Given much of their base is further down the north-west coast in places like Smithton and Stanley, the move makes even less sense than the cost of the refurb. There'd be plenty of readily available space in Devonport that didn't need over $500k spent on it even if we do accept the premise that the move to Devonport was justified.

On the question of why he should be obliged to work out of Lambie's old office - that's pretty standard practice across Federal and State MPs. The leases and facilities already exist, there generally isn't a need to move just for the sake of it.

 

[Vader]

40 minutes is nothing; and you keep saying "smaller town", but the difference between Devonport and Burnie would be fairly negligible by the time you're adding quasi-satellite towns like Penguin and Wynyard that are within 15 minutes of Burnie.

Given much of their base is further down the north-west coast in places like Smithton and Stanley, the move makes even less sense than the cost of the refurb. There'd be plenty of readily available space in Devonport that didn't need over $500k spent on it even if we do accept the premise that the move to Devonport was justified.

On the question of why he should be obliged to work out of Lambie's old office - that's pretty standard practice across Federal and State MPs. The leases and facilities already exist, there generally isn't a need to move just for the sake of it.

Just to be clear, he was the Mayor of Devonport until Lambie was thrown out of the Senate and he was promoted to take her place. So, you're saying that a politician should be forced to drive 40 min (each way) to an office in a smaller town, rather than having an office in the bigger town where he actually lives?

The idea of him taking over Lambie's office is just plain stupidity. Whether or not the renovations should have cost $500k is another matter, but the Dept of Finance made all the arrangements and didn't bat an eyelid.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Just to be clear, he was the Mayor of Devonport until Lambie was thrown out of the Senate and he was promoted to take her place. So, you're saying that a politician should be forced to drive 40 min (each way) to an office in a smaller town, rather than having an office in the bigger town where he actually lives?

The idea of him taking over Lambie's office is just plain stupidity. Whether or not the renovations should have cost $500k is another matter, but the Dept of Finance made all the arrangements and didn't bat an eyelid.

You're suggesting that the office location and the cost of the reno are different issues - they aren't, they're entirely intertwined.

 

[Vader]

You're suggesting that the office location and the cost of the reno are different issues - they aren't, they're entirely intertwined.

Of course they're separate issues. If he took a new office in Devonport and the renovations cost $100k then we're not having this conversation.

The fact is that the office in Burnie wasn't appropriate, given that he was from Devonport in the first place. Only an idiot would argue that he should be forced to use an office in another town, 40 minutes away from home, just because his predecessor came from Burnie and had her office there. That's a really, really, dumb argument.

There is no valid argument that his office should be anywhere other than Devonport. The only question remaining then is the cost of those renovations.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Of course they're separate issues. If he took a new office in Devonport and the renovations cost $100k then we're not having this conversation.

The fact is that the office in Burnie wasn't appropriate, given that he was from Devonport in the first place. Only an idiot would argue that he should be forced to use an office in another town, 40 minutes away from home, just because his predecessor came from Burnie and had her office there. That's a really, really, dumb argument.

There is no valid argument that his office should be anywhere other than Devonport. The only question remaining then is the cost of those renovations.

Only a true idiot uses the "you're an idiot if you don't agree with me" approach to a discussion

 

[Father Jack]

Of course they're separate issues. If he took a new office in Devonport and the renovations cost $100k then we're not having this conversation.

The fact is that the office in Burnie wasn't appropriate, given that he was from Devonport in the first place. Only an idiot would argue that he should be forced to use an office in another town, 40 minutes away from home, just because his predecessor came from Burnie and had her office there. That's a really, really, dumb argument.

There is no valid argument that his office should be anywhere other than Devonport. The only question remaining then is the cost of those renovations.

Considering that he's only going to be in the place for five minutes, $500k is truly ridiculous. He could have at the very least stayed in the old office until the election

 

[TimmeT]

Considering that he's only going to be in the place for five minutes, $500k is truly ridiculous. He could have at the very least stayed in the old office until the election

Issue is until this kinda crap gets forced upon MPs it won't happen.

 

[FredLeDeux]

Issue is until this kinda crap gets forced upon MPs it won't happen.

To force some restraint upon the trough-pigs, all we need to do is disinter Ted Mack, clone him, and elect 100 of his clones.

 

[Vader]

Considering that he's only going to be in the place for five minutes, $500k is truly ridiculous. He could have at the very least stayed in the old office until the election

That's a lot more sensible than any of the previously mounted arguments.

 

[Vader]

Only a true idiot uses the "you're an idiot if you don't agree with me" approach to a discussion

Feel free to come up with a sensible argument for forcing someone to work from an office 40km away from home, purely because their predecessor worked there. Good luck with that.

 

[nobbyiscool]

Feel free to come up with a sensible argument for forcing someone to work from an office 40km away from home, purely because their predecessor worked there. Good luck with that.

Yeah, I would - except you've already been presented with plenty, and you've just put your fingers in your ears and squealed the same s**t.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

Christians are arguing that Cannon Law should override secular law and Christian values need legislative protection.

Does this mean they also support Sharia law and the protection of Muslim values such as the hijab?

 

[GreyCrow]

Christians are arguing that Cannon Law should override secular law and Christian values need legislative protection.

Does this mean they also support Sharia law and the protection of Muslim values such as the hijab?

This cognitive dissonance is everywhere , its like they dont think through the unintended consequences.

 

[Vader]

Yeah, I would - except you've already been presented with plenty, and you've just put your fingers in your ears and squealed the same s**t.

The only half-decent explanation so far is that he's likely to be a one-term Senator, who is likely to be voted out at the next election, and removed from the Senate when his term expires in June (?). Even so, a Senator is still entitled to have an office from which to work until such time as he is voted out, and he shouldn't be forced to work out of an office in a different town 40 min drive from where he lives. This is a valid argument, but it's a weak one at best. I'm yet to hear another argument with any validity at all.

Would you suggest that he be forced to work from Lambie's old office if she were from Hobart, instead of Burnie?

I note that you support a WA team, so I'll put this into a context you might understand a bit better. You're effectively suggesting that a Senator from Perth should be forced to work from an office in Mandurah, simply because the previous Mandurah-based Senator got thrown out and left their offices vacant. In what universe is that a sensible solution?

 

[Crankyhawk]

Christians are arguing that Cannon Law should override secular law and Christian values need legislative protection.

Does this mean they also support Sharia law and the protection of Muslim values such as the hijab?

Where are they saying this? It is madness

 

[GreyCrow]

Where are they saying this? It is madness

Sydney Archbishop Fisher

The most senior Catholic figure in Australia has delivered an impassioned condemnation of “hard-edged secularism”, warning that politicians have allowed religious freedoms to be dangerously eroded.

He says “discrimination against people of faith has become more acceptable in some quarters”.

In his Christmas message, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher cited a recommendation from the child abuse royal commission to break the seal of confession to priests as one example of public pressure to dismantle fundamental church tenets.


“We’ve witnessed moves to make the celebration of the sacrament of confession illegal, to defund church schools, to charge an archbishop with discrimination for teaching about marriage, and to deny faith-based institutions the right to choose what kind of community they will be,” Archbishop Fisher said.

“The Christmas message of hope and healing is religious freedom writ large, not for exclusion or power, but for love and service.”

Archbishop Fisher has previously criticised an anti-discrimination complaint made against Tasmanian Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous for upholding Catholic teachings about marriage being between a man and a woman, and proposals circulating in Labor circles to remove exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for faith-based schools that allow them to not employ gay teachers.

While the government is developing legislation it says will enshrine religious freedom in a religious discrimination act, Archbishop Fisher said it had not yet happened.

“A year ago there were promises of new measures to ensure religious freedom is protected in this country,” Archbishop Fisher said in his Christmas message.

“A year later and governments have done nothing about this. Indeed, we’ve gone backwards, and discrimination against people of faith has become more acceptable in some quarters.”

The archbishop warned. “A hard-edged secularism would exclude faith, and the faithful, from public life, boot out Judaeo-Christian heritage from law and culture, and confine faith to an ever-narrowing field of private life,” he said.

Christmas was becoming “one of the few occasions when the public expression of religious faith is tolerated”.

 

[Gough]

The unfortunate truth for the churches in this day and age is that to get the protections they wish for they are forced to align themselves to hard edged right wing conservative politicians whose neo liberal agenda is at odds with their teachings.

 

[Crankyhawk]

Sydney Archbishop Fisher

The most senior Catholic figure in Australia has delivered an impassioned condemnation of “hard-edged secularism”, warning that politicians have allowed religious freedoms to be dangerously eroded.

He says “discrimination against people of faith has become more acceptable in some quarters”.

In his Christmas message, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher cited a recommendation from the child abuse royal commission to break the seal of confession to priests as one example of public pressure to dismantle fundamental church tenets.


“We’ve witnessed moves to make the celebration of the sacrament of confession illegal, to defund church schools, to charge an archbishop with discrimination for teaching about marriage, and to deny faith-based institutions the right to choose what kind of community they will be,” Archbishop Fisher said.

“The Christmas message of hope and healing is religious freedom writ large, not for exclusion or power, but for love and service.”

Archbishop Fisher has previously criticised an anti-discrimination complaint made against Tasmanian Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous for upholding Catholic teachings about marriage being between a man and a woman, and proposals circulating in Labor circles to remove exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for faith-based schools that allow them to not employ gay teachers.

While the government is developing legislation it says will enshrine religious freedom in a religious discrimination act, Archbishop Fisher said it had not yet happened.

“A year ago there were promises of new measures to ensure religious freedom is protected in this country,” Archbishop Fisher said in his Christmas message.

“A year later and governments have done nothing about this. Indeed, we’ve gone backwards, and discrimination against people of faith has become more acceptable in some quarters.”

The archbishop warned. “A hard-edged secularism would exclude faith, and the faithful, from public life, boot out Judaeo-Christian heritage from law and culture, and confine faith to an ever-narrowing field of private life,” he said.

Christmas was becoming “one of the few occasions when the public expression of religious faith is tolerated”.

He needs to accept that religion should always be secondary to secular law. If he doesn’t like it he can piss off

 

[Baltimore Jack]

The unfortunate truth for the churches in this day and age is that to get the protections they wish for they are forced to align themselves to hard edged right wing conservative politicians whose neo liberal agenda is at odds with their teachings.

And if the Christian Churches are pushing this, it then becomes only fair for non-christian religions to ask for exactly the same concessions
Imagine the RWNJ if Islam says "well you got it, now we want it"

 

[Father Jack]

Sydney Archbishop Fisher

The most senior Catholic figure in Australia has delivered an impassioned condemnation of “hard-edged secularism”, warning that politicians have allowed religious freedoms to be dangerously eroded.

He says “discrimination against people of faith has become more acceptable in some quarters”.

In his Christmas message, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher cited a recommendation from the child abuse royal commission to break the seal of confession to priests as one example of public pressure to dismantle fundamental church tenets.


“We’ve witnessed moves to make the celebration of the sacrament of confession illegal, to defund church schools, to charge an archbishop with discrimination for teaching about marriage, and to deny faith-based institutions the right to choose what kind of community they will be,” Archbishop Fisher said.

“The Christmas message of hope and healing is religious freedom writ large, not for exclusion or power, but for love and service.”

Archbishop Fisher has previously criticised an anti-discrimination complaint made against Tasmanian Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous for upholding Catholic teachings about marriage being between a man and a woman, and proposals circulating in Labor circles to remove exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for faith-based schools that allow them to not employ gay teachers.

While the government is developing legislation it says will enshrine religious freedom in a religious discrimination act, Archbishop Fisher said it had not yet happened.

“A year ago there were promises of new measures to ensure religious freedom is protected in this country,” Archbishop Fisher said in his Christmas message.

“A year later and governments have done nothing about this. Indeed, we’ve gone backwards, and discrimination against people of faith has become more acceptable in some quarters.”

The archbishop warned. “A hard-edged secularism would exclude faith, and the faithful, from public life, boot out Judaeo-Christian heritage from law and culture, and confine faith to an ever-narrowing field of private life,” he said.

Christmas was becoming “one of the few occasions when the public expression of religious faith is tolerated”.

That rant is even more ludicrous when you consider that suppressing certain news items doesn't mean that no one knows about it

 

[nobbyiscool]

Sydney Archbishop Fisher

The most senior Catholic figure in Australia has delivered an impassioned condemnation of “hard-edged secularism”, warning that politicians have allowed religious freedoms to be dangerously eroded.

He says “discrimination against people of faith has become more acceptable in some quarters”.

In his Christmas message, Catholic Archbishop of Sydney Anthony Fisher cited a recommendation from the child abuse royal commission to break the seal of confession to priests as one example of public pressure to dismantle fundamental church tenets.


“We’ve witnessed moves to make the celebration of the sacrament of confession illegal, to defund church schools, to charge an archbishop with discrimination for teaching about marriage, and to deny faith-based institutions the right to choose what kind of community they will be,” Archbishop Fisher said.

“The Christmas message of hope and healing is religious freedom writ large, not for exclusion or power, but for love and service.”

Archbishop Fisher has previously criticised an anti-discrimination complaint made against Tasmanian Catholic Archbishop Julian Porteous for upholding Catholic teachings about marriage being between a man and a woman, and proposals circulating in Labor circles to remove exemptions from anti-discrimination laws for faith-based schools that allow them to not employ gay teachers.

While the government is developing legislation it says will enshrine religious freedom in a religious discrimination act, Archbishop Fisher said it had not yet happened.

“A year ago there were promises of new measures to ensure religious freedom is protected in this country,” Archbishop Fisher said in his Christmas message.

“A year later and governments have done nothing about this. Indeed, we’ve gone backwards, and discrimination against people of faith has become more acceptable in some quarters.”

The archbishop warned. “A hard-edged secularism would exclude faith, and the faithful, from public life, boot out Judaeo-Christian heritage from law and culture, and confine faith to an ever-narrowing field of private life,” he said.

Christmas was becoming “one of the few occasions when the public expression of religious faith is tolerated”.

This is ******* unhinged.

 

[Admiral Byng]

Archbishop Fisher seems to be saying that all this like it's a bad thing.

 

[Baltimore Jack]

 

[Baltimore Jack]

So Julie Bishop got thrown off the back of a Boat in Sydney Harbour....seems about right