Political Discussion

Remove this Banner Ad

Status
Not open for further replies.
Sep 30, 2014
18,956
40,125
AFL Club
Adelaide
It's not at all okay to compare gay people fighting for their rights to Nazi Germany. We know this, you know this. Everyone knows this. Except, as it turns out, 'The Australian' cartoonist Bill Leak. So, purely for his benefit, comedian Ben McLeay explains why it's not okay to depict the LGBTIQ community as the Nazis that murdered so many of them.

http://www.sbs.com.au/comedy/articl...fit-why-its-not-okay-compare-gay-people-nazis
I bet the person who wrote that is too stupid to realize they are demonstrating the point which the cartoon is trying to get across.
 
May 20, 2001
39,274
51,394
Kufa, Iraq
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Banhammer Big House Under 70s
It's satire. Get over it.

MARRIAGE LICENSE OFFICE CLERK......
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?", said the clerk.
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers?? You can't get married."
"Why not?? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've claim they'd been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that
it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says?? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Anderson."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself?? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!!:thumbsdown: You people are making a mockery of marriage!!:thumbsdown:"
 

Mego Red

The Artist Formerly Known As Kristof
10k Posts
Oct 3, 2003
26,916
30,910
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Soft spot for Brisbane
It's satire. Get over it.

It's comparing gay people - who were slaughtered by Nazis - to Nazi storm troopers.

That's no more satire than black face.

It's BEYOND disgusting and easily comparable to the joke he did about Aboriginal children not knowing who their fathers are.

He is the same as that prejudiced old aunt you have, who says embarrassing things at family dinners.

Honestly, your ability to be an apologist for the fundamentalists and right wing extremists knows no limits.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

Mego Red

The Artist Formerly Known As Kristof
10k Posts
Oct 3, 2003
26,916
30,910
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Soft spot for Brisbane
MARRIAGE LICENSE OFFICE CLERK......
"Good morning. We want to apply for a marriage license."
"Names?", said the clerk.
"Tim and Jim Jones."
"Jones?? Are you related?? I see a resemblance."
"Yes, we're brothers."
"Brothers?? You can't get married."
"Why not?? Aren't you giving marriage licenses to same gender couples?"
"Yes, thousands. But we haven't had any siblings. That's incest!"
"Incest?" No, we are not gay."
"Not gay?? Then why do you want to get married?"
"For the financial benefits, of course. And we do love each other. Besides, we don't have any other prospects."
"But we're issuing marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples who've claim they'd been denied equal protection under the law. If you are not gay, you can get married to a woman."
"Wait a minute. A gay man has the same right to marry a woman as I have. But just because I'm straight doesn't mean I want to marry a woman. I want to marry Jim."
"And I want to marry Tim, Are you going to discriminate against us just because we are not gay?"
"All right, all right. I'll give you your license. Next."
"Hi. We are here to get married."
"Names?"
"John Smith, Jane James, Robert Green, and June Johnson."
"Who wants to marry whom?"
"We all want to marry each other."
"But there are four of you!"
"That's right. You see, we're all bisexual. I love Jane and Robert, Jane loves me and June, June loves Robert and Jane, and Robert loves June and me. All of us getting married together is the only way that we can express our sexual preferences in a marital relationship."
"But we've only been granting licenses to gay and lesbian couples."
"So you're discriminating against bisexuals!"
"No, it's just that, well, the traditional idea of marriage is that
it's just for couples."
"Since when are you standing on tradition?"
"Well, I mean, you have to draw the line somewhere."
"Who says?? There's no logical reason to limit marriage to couples. The more the better. Besides, we demand our rights! The mayor says the constitution guarantees equal protection under the law. Give us a marriage license!"
"All right, all right. Next."
"Hello, I'd like a marriage license."
"In what names?"
"David Anderson."
"And the other man?"
"That's all. I want to marry myself."
"Marry yourself?? What do you mean?"
"Well, my psychiatrist says I have a dual personality, so I want to marry the two together. Maybe I can file a joint income-tax return."
"That does it! I quit!!:thumbsdown: You people are making a mockery of marriage!!:thumbsdown:"

WTF is this?

I started reading it, but it seemed about as funny as a dead cat.
 
Sep 30, 2014
18,956
40,125
AFL Club
Adelaide
It's comparing gay people - who were slaughtered by Nazis - to Nazi storm troopers.

That's no more satire than black face.

It's BEYOND disgusting and easily comparable to the joke he did about Aboriginal children not knowing who their fathers are.

He is the same as that prejudiced old aunt you have, who says embarrassing things at family dinners.

Honestly, your ability to be an apologist for the fundamentalists and right wing extremists knows no limits.
It's not comparing the people. It's comparing their approach, being to shout down anyone who has a differing opinion, no matter the basis of that opinion and effectively ostracize them, calling them homophobes or some of the other slurs used in the article.

Someone made the point so succinctly before on here, the far left are just as intolerant as the far right. This is just another example.
 
Sep 30, 2014
18,956
40,125
AFL Club
Adelaide
It's comparing gay people - who were slaughtered by Nazis - to Nazi storm troopers.

That's no more satire than black face.

It's BEYOND disgusting and easily comparable to the joke he did about Aboriginal children not knowing who their fathers are.

He is the same as that prejudiced old aunt you have, who says embarrassing things at family dinners.

Honestly, your ability to be an apologist for the fundamentalists and right wing extremists knows no limits.
How did you feel about the Charlie Hebdo stuff? That was another cartoonist drawing something offensive. I'm sure you wouldn't condone the violence, but I assume if you're being consistent then you would feel they overstepped the mark?
 

Mego Red

The Artist Formerly Known As Kristof
10k Posts
Oct 3, 2003
26,916
30,910
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Soft spot for Brisbane
How did you feel about the Charlie Hebdo stuff? That was another cartoonist drawing something offensive. I'm sure you wouldn't condone the violence, but I assume if you're being consistent then you would feel they overstepped the mark?

People are born gay, just like they're born black.

No one is BORN to be a religious extremist.

There is nothing about the behavior of gay couples that deserves mocking, unlike the actions of fundamentalist Muslims or Christians.

Gay men and women have the right to protest when they are not being treated equally. That does not make them nazis. And the comparison is even more disgusting when you consider the Nazis murdered hundreds of thousands of gays.

It is a stunningly prejudiced thing to do. Embarrassing and horrendous.

The thing that is most frustrating about the far right is the actions of gay couples do not affect them at all. Whether they get married or adopt kids or whatever - it has zero affect on the lives of those on the conservative right. But they want to constantly deny gay couples things that affect them, their lives and their basic rights to equality enormously.
 
Last edited:

Mego Red

The Artist Formerly Known As Kristof
10k Posts
Oct 3, 2003
26,916
30,910
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Soft spot for Brisbane
It's more satire and quite pertinent.
What you don't like satire?

It was genuinely unreadable. It felt like a submission to a middle school drama project.
 

Mego Red

The Artist Formerly Known As Kristof
10k Posts
Oct 3, 2003
26,916
30,910
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Soft spot for Brisbane
Hahaha....The Lefties....don't let the truth get in the way of their fantasies..

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/bl...k=f3ed4056e97f500c4064f38103ea2d6a-1474980003

True - those folks should have fact checked that statement before tweeting their reply.

If you're interested in fact-checking, here's Bloomberg fact checking the first debate:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...the-first-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-debate

Or you might prefer Politifact, which has Donald at a 17% truth rating throughout the campaign:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Or if you really like crazy tweets, here's some from right wing Trumpers:

http://reverbpress.com/politics/won...rom-trump-supporters-at-trumprallychi-tweets/
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Nov 24, 2007
25,849
54,730
DTC Frat House
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Team Lambda Variant
It was genuinely unreadable. It felt like a submission to a middle school drama project.

The idea had merit, but poorly written doesn't begin to describe it.

No one is BORN to be a religious extremist.

I wonder about this. What if some people are born with a predilection to suggestion or lower IQs and this is a direct result?

People are born gay but only notice it when they start understanding the external world
People are born black but only notice it when they start understanding the external world
People are born stupid but only notice it when... yeah, you need that external influence to tell you religion is what you should be worried about, otherwise you just stay dumb.
 

Bicks

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 10, 2009
29,795
44,888
Victorian Central Highlands
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Panthers, GWV Rebels Beaufort Crows
True - those folks should have fact checked that statement before tweeting their reply.

If you're interested in fact-checking, here's Bloomberg fact checking the first debate:

http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/a...the-first-donald-trump-hillary-clinton-debate

Or you might prefer Politifact, which has Donald at a 17% truth rating throughout the campaign:

http://www.politifact.com/personalities/donald-trump/

Or if you really like crazy tweets, here's some from right wing Trumpers:

http://reverbpress.com/politics/won...rom-trump-supporters-at-trumprallychi-tweets/

Would you like me to do an expose' on Clinton's foibles and stuff ups and that of her left wing Clintoners...plenty out there..
And just for the record it's an indictment on American Politics when they are left with these two less than ideal candidates for Presidency and that goes for Sanders and Cruz etc. Politics in Australia is far from perfect, USA however is a shambles..
 

Bicks

Cancelled
10k Posts
Jun 10, 2009
29,795
44,888
Victorian Central Highlands
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Panthers, GWV Rebels Beaufort Crows
Very good article by Chris Kenny pointing out the "short comings" of both current Political Parties Liberal and Labor.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...k=9e74f8eb7c5184790dcdbe568416f35a-1475285237

Consider a political landscape in which one state tries to shut down the previously legal pursuit of greyhound racing, another is plunged into chaos because it fails to run a robust electricity generation and distribution system, and the federal government’s most pressing problem is the process by which to allow parliament to vote on a gay marriage bill — again.

Disparate issues, to be sure, but all lead us to the inevitable and unpalatable conclusion that our politicians have slipped their moorings. We would probably prefer they just concentrated on properly running the place.

Mainstream voters supported the governments of Bob Hawke and John Howard because they had a sense of their priorities and got things done. It is hardly surprising that the sensible centre actually wants governments to govern rather than grandstand.

In an age when people on the Left of politics tend to argue that the Left-Right divide is redundant, we do sometimes struggle to describe the essential differences. One constant must be that the Right seeks to minimise the role of government and the Left aims to expand it. And the Right wants pragmatism and functionality while the Left is attracted to fashionable causes and grand gestures.

Such is the disconnect between the mainstream and the political class that even so-called conservative politicians are susceptible to this relentless drift away from the basic functions of government into the realm of posturing and pontification.

Indeed, the moderates of the Liberal Party often have more in common with the emotionalism of the green Left, whereas the hard-headed Coalition conservatives sometimes may find their closest soulmates in the pragmatic Right faction of the Labor Party.

This is why both major parties seem to function — and govern — best when their Right flanks are in the ascendant. It is not about whether the governments are Centre-Right or Centre-Left but more about how their predisposition for practical outcomes — a preference for rational decisions over sanctimony — is more attuned to the good sense of mainstream voters.

The political/media class is an entirely different matter. It sets itself apart from and above the mainstream. The way to appeal to the press gallery, university academics and the public broadcasters is to trumpet symbolism and emotionalism. They yearn for change — for history — and if it can’t be a re-run of the Vietnam moratoriums or our own version of the civil rights movement, they’ll find something else.

Don’t worry about enforcing sovereign borders, parade your compassion. Don’t worry about providing plentiful cheap energy, parade your desire to save the planet. Put your fiscal repair imperatives to one side so you can parade your superior intentions on gay marriage. Instead of getting bogged down in how to make our schools and hospitals more efficient, parade your animal liberation credentials.

NSW Premier Mike Baird is so keen to portray himself as a conservationist that he weighs up the merits of saving human lives against the merits of killing a few more sharks.

South Australian Premier Jay Weatherill pretends his wind power push is helping to cool the climate but pretends away the reality of the nation’s highest electricity prices without reliability of supply.

Bill Shorten campaigns on his desire to deliver another parliamentary vote on gay marriage but deliberately thwarts a plan, endorsed by voters, to do exactly that after a plebiscite.

It is no surprise, then, that this posturing, this gesture politicking, is wholeheartedly endorsed by the commentariat and its social media amplifiers. The mainstream is a little more sceptical and practical.

Baird’s government initially was heartened by the social media reaction to its greyhound ban. Yet others, including those of us with no fondness for greyhounds or gambling, could immediately see the rash injustice and nanny-state overreach.

Now Baird is facing a serious backlash from the industry and its political supporters among the Nationals. But more illuminating is the broader disenchantment in his government as measured by Newspoll.

This drop in support indicates a mainstream alert to overweening government intervention and, perhaps, a preference for political leaders to stick to their knitting.

Yet Baird’s rush to shut down the greyhound industry sits in stark contrast to his reluctance to install nets or drum lines to protect northern NSW beaches from large sharks. Government interventions that are standard for Sydney’s beaches and for Queensland’s tourist hot spots are considered too much for the holiday centres of Byron Bay and Ballina.

The paradoxes are explained, surely, by politicians allowing the views of conservationists and animal activists to override the judgment that mainstream voters may expect. It is a matter of priorities.

For all the slogans, promises and personalities, voters want governments to get the basics right.

Activists and the political/media class seek inspiration and want to be part of changing history — soaring rhetoric and grand proclamations feed the emotionalism of the Left. Sometimes it is harmless.

Politicians seeking affirmation and affection attempt to satisfy this desire. They play to the gallery. It is lauded by some and tolerated by others.

But when they overreach (like Baird) or forget the basics (like Weatherill) the wrath of voters can be quick and fierce.

Stick to your knitting.

This underlying public preference for governments to make the trains run on time is reassuring, and increasingly important as the fracturing and acceleration of the media landscape put more distance between politicians and their constituents.

In an ideal world we would have prosaic premiers committed to efficient service and shrinking public sectors. They would deliver cheap and reliable power and effective hospitals, and talk about education outcomes rather than comparative school funding.

On the federal stage we would have leaders with sturdy economic backgrounds and a sense of history in international affairs and cultural development. They would cherish and defend what has made us a great nation and usher in incremental social change and constant economic reform.

Some of us dare to dream of governments and leaders that know their limits. We yearn for the plainness of a premier who confesses he can’t save the planet but can keep the lights on; the drudgery of a prime minister with no grand plan for innovation but to lighten the tax and regulatory burden so innovators may thrive.

Imagine policy speeches about delivering the same services better and cheaper, protecting what we have, and not wasting capital, political or financial, on public follies such as new public communications monopolies or mandatory renewable energy targets.

But perhaps we hope for too much to have politicians who would promise so little.

 
Would you like me to do an expose' on Clinton's foibles and stuff ups and that of her left wing Clintoners...plenty out there..
And just for the record it's an indictment on American Politics when they are left with these two less than ideal candidates for Presidency and that goes for Sanders and Cruz etc. Politics in Australia is far from perfect, USA however is a shambles..

I absolutely agree with your sentiment. It is astounding to me that the Democrats have managed to find the 1 person on the entire planet that is completely capable of losing to a misogynist, racist, nationalistic, failed businessman of a horror being fronted by the Republicans.

I belong to neither party and identify as a political independent but these choices are sad beyond belief. It is unfathomable. :(
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back