The Greens

[Crankyhawk]

Personally, I'd just think you're a loser and disengage.

Fair enough. So medicine must enable anyone who wants to transition whenever and wherever?
I mean we make children wait until they are adult before they can have irreversible sterilisation (hysterectomy, vasectomy)
I’m comfortable with using preferred pronouns
I’m not comfortable initiating transition medication (will chart them if someone has initiated as I’m presuming the original prescriber has had the conversation)

 

[SSwans2011]

Fair enough. So medicine must enable anyone who wants to transition whenever and wherever?
I mean we make children wait until they are adult before they can have irreversible sterilisation (hysterectomy, vasectomy)
I’m comfortable with using preferred pronouns
I’m not comfortable initiating transition medication (will chart them if someone has initiated as I’m presuming the original prescriber has had the conversation)

Wrong thread and beyond my scope. Questions about medicating transitions should be left to experts in the field.

My response only covered if someone outwardly told me they were a transphobe. It'd be the same response if they said they were racist, homophobic, sexist, Islamophobic, etc..

I will support anyone who wants to transition though. Ultimately, it's none of my business.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I'm not worried about them. They're intelligent, qualified people with plenty of life experience. I'm sorry if you got the impression I was suggesting they feel victimised or beleaguered.

Just trying to get a few on here, you included, to understand the real world is different to utopia, that if a person in an educational institution misuses a phrase, they don't necessarily deserve to be branded and othered and cancelled, that uni lecturers actually aren't all-powerful, nor necessarily malicious.

And if those comments are the same objections you read from a dreaded CONSERVATIVE, well, there's a few possibilities, some possibly more palatable than others -

*Some individuals can simultaneously hold views on different topics that range from progressive to conservative

*In some cases, conservatism might not need be automatically dismissed out of hand

*The fact that dickhead rightwingers might weaponise a view held by more reasonable people is no reason for those people to cease holding that view

*Identity politics, for whatever good it has done, also contains by definition as much possibility of being exclusionary as to be inclusive, and that some people might care to self-examine and wonder if they might have been guilty of the former on at least the odd occasion.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

I think you're flogging a dead horse though, attempting to provide clarity of sense to the ideologically blinded. That epiphany ain't ever comin.

 

[SSwans2011]

"Ideologically blinded"

You're so woke.

 

[PJays]

Most Liberal MPs would also be from the 'educated, wealthy class',

And Liberal leadership recently misread their membership on trans issues, just like Greens leadership did.

 

[Kram]

So give her attention for her achievements rather than abuse when she reacts to a group of blokes abusing her and her friends in a dark street.

Go you.

 

[Chief]

Go you!

 

[Big Papa Ted]

Please don't give her oxygen again.

It had died out in this thread.

 

[Northalives]

Please don't give her oxygen again.

It had died out in this thread.

She's been out of the spotlight for a while so another stunt of hers was bound to come along.

 

[Chief]

Please don't give her oxygen again.

It had died out in this thread.

You love it! What else would you have to grit your teeth about?

 

[Big Papa Ted]

She's been out of the spotlight for a while so another stunt of hers was bound to come along.

But just don't give her oxygen. Especially not in the thread for a party she doesn't belong to

She isn't worth it!

 

[Big Papa Ted]

You love it! What else would you have to grit your teeth about?

Haha that's the difference between us Chief. I don't live my life looking for things to grind my teeth over.

My dental bills are fantasticly low as a result. Give it a whirl.

 

[Northalives]

But just don't give her oxygen. Especially not in the thread for a party she doesn't belong to

She isn't worth it!

Yep, I know where you are coming from but I have been banned from the Voice thread because her apologists and groupies don't think that she should be subjected to the same type of scrutiny or criticism as any other politician. This has left me with no other option than to intrude on other threads when there is even a hint of a connection with the Voice.

Where can I post my absolute abhorrence at Mundine and the other collaborator Price and debunk their putrid lies with evidence of their lying and scheming?

 

[Chief]

her apologists and groupies don't think that she should be subjected to the same type of scrutiny or criticism as any other politician

Waiting for your in-depth analysis of LNP pollies.

 

[Northalives]

Waiting for your in-depth analysis of LNP pollies.

What are you on about? I don't "spare the rod" when it comes to LNP politicians or any other politicians. It's the precious ones around here who find it too stressful to read criticism about their "heroes".

You and that other bloke should pull your heads in and allow us to express our opinions on politicians of all political hues, all religions, all races and colours and creeds.

My assertions about Thorpe have proven to be spot on, that is, she has proven me correct. She is a racist and a media tart whose only interest are her own interests and she plays to a small, fascist group of Indigenous people. She said on The Insiders that she will probably abstain from the vote on the Voice in the Senate. She freaked out that the far right lackeys Mundine and Price using her in their filthy No campaign adds even though she has branded herself as the "progressive NO" speaker.

You and the other fellows are not justified in banning me from the Voice thread. I was warned to temper my sometimes acerbic language towards her and even though it was no different to the language I have used towards, Morrison, Rudd, Shorten, Abbott, Trump, Dutton, Hanson, Taylor, Bernardi, Price, etc etc etc etc etc .... I tempered my language but you lot still didn't care for my criticisms of her so you banned me.

Stop being smug and trying to deflect your prejudices by accusing me of not treating LNP pollies the same nor posting my criticisms of them with reasons for doing so.

Thorpe I believe is not all together up top and I have refrained from being as brutal towards her as I am towards other politicians and public figures. My criticism above of her are not conjecture but the facts and I still think that these actions of hers are as a result of some other extenuating circumstances.

 

[Crankyhawk]

What are you on about? I don't "spare the rod" when it comes to LNP politicians or any other politicians. It's the precious ones around here who find it too stressful to read criticism about their "heroes".

You and that other bloke should pull your heads in and allow us to express our opinions on politicians of all political hues, all religions, all races and colours and creeds.

My assertions about Thorpe have proven to be spot on, that is, she has proven me correct. She is a racist and a media tart whose only interest are her own interests and she plays to a small, fascist group of Indigenous people. She said on The Insiders that she will probably abstain from the vote on the Voice in the Senate. She freaked out that the far right lackeys Mundine and Price using her in their filthy No campaign adds even thought she has branded herself as the "progressive NO" speaker.

You and the other fellows are not justified in banning me from the Voice thread. I was warned to temper my sometimes acerbic language towards her and even though it was no different to the language I have used towards, Morrison, Rudd, Shorten, Abbott, Trump, Dutton, Hanson, Taylor, Bernardi, Price, etc etc etc etc etc .... I tempered my language but you lot still didn't care for my criticisms of her so you banned me.

Stop being smug and trying to deflect your prejudices by accusing me of not treating LNP pollies the same nor posting my criticisms of them with reasons for doing so.

Thorpe I believe is not all together up top and I have refrained from being as brutal towards her as I am towards other politicians and public figures. My criticism above of her are not conjecture but the facts and I still think that these actions of hers are as a result of some other extenuating circumstances.

i have posted in that other thread about her statements on ABC radio today regarding the 1967 referendum and how it was seen by her as (summing up) pointless due to nothing there about treaty. She seems to be holding out for the unrealistic treaty first position, and believes she is better in tune with what first Nations people want more than the organisations involved in the Uluru statement. I just find that type of statement stretches credibility.

Though it is unfair for it to be in the Greens thread, but I couldn't see a THorpe thread (which would probably have turned into a cesspit of bile though...)

 

[Northalives]

i have posted in that other thread about her statements on ABC radio today regarding the 1967 referendum and how it was seen by her as (summing up) pointless due to nothing there about treaty. She seems to be holding out for the unrealistic treaty first position, and believes she is better in tune with what first Nations people want more than the organisations involved in the Uluru statement. I just find that type of statement stretches credibility.

Though it is unfair for it to be in the Greens thread, but I couldn't see a THorpe thread (which would probably have turned into a cesspit of bile though...)

Her assertion that it the 1967 referendum was "pointless" is something right out of the Gary Foley play book. That bloke who was wonderful at putting Aboriginal causes front and centre has become self obsessed and self serving - remind you of anyone?

I really do believe that these Aboriginal Fascists are s**t scared that if the Voice is triumphant, then they'll lose their status and prestige. Mundine and Price are part of an "industry" that relies on the suppression and marginalisation of our Indigenous brothers and sister so they can maintain their privileged and lucrative careers.

Foley was 17 years old when the 1967 referendum was carried by a massive vote for the changes to the Constitution and on that day, he, Foley, and every other indigenous person was recognised as being human beings. Up until then, they were counted as part of the livestock and it was because of the success of the referendum that recognised them as humans, we got the Mabo and Wik cases brought before the courts with positive outcomes. THESE CASES COULD NEVER HAVE BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE COURTS WITHOUT THE CARRYING OF THE 1967 REFERENDUM BECAUSE ABORIGINALS WERE NOT CONSIDERED AS HUMAN BEINGS UNTIL 1967! So much for the 1967 referendum being "pointless" and there have been many other things that have flowed from that great success, for example, Whitlam and Fraser handing land back to the black fellas amongst other things.

The Greens saw sense and did not buckle under the forceful and loud Aboriginal Fascist faction within their party and the best thing to happen for the Greens was Thorpe buggering off taking the fascists with her.

 

[Chief]

She seems to be holding out for the unrealistic treaty first position

"Seems"? She says it often. The only reason you're not sure is the boomer news outlets don't talk about her policies or her work. It's about that time some dickheads attacked her outside the venue where her friend's 50th drinks happened.

Seems.

 

[Crankyhawk]

"Seems"? She says it often. The only reason you're not sure is the boomer news outlets don't talk about her policies or her work. It's about that time some dickheads attacked her outside the venue where her friend's 50th drinks happened.

Seems.

I use the word “seems” to convey that it is my interpretation of her position (because I didn’t go and get quotes). That’s all it was in case I was misrepresenting her. I agree it is much stronger than “seems” but I’m naturally a cautious poster who is willing to say my interpretation is incorrect.

Except around usa gun rights. I’m somewhat less cautious there…

 

[Big Papa Ted]

"Seems"? She says it often. The only reason you're not sure is the boomer news outlets don't talk about her policies or her work. It's about that time some dickheads attacked her outside the venue where her friend's 50th drinks happened.

Seems.

Why are you still trotting out this lie when every piece of corroborating evidence points to the opposite Chief?

 

[Chief]

Why are you still trotting out this lie when every piece of corroborating evidence points to the opposite Chief?

lol!

 

[HurleyHepsHird]

Quickly becoming the party of Warren-esque PMC liberals, but Australian.

I don't necessarily see the current spat hurting them too much.

There is no organised left alternative in Australia, so the plan is likely take advantage of young voters and/or take them for granted, then compete with the Teals in earnest for the Tree Tory types. A lack of unity though definitely won't help Voice, which is frustrating to me as they again manage to be useless bordering on counterproductive.

 

[Northalives]

lol!

It's not f****ing funny!

Thorpe went into a racist rant against some black fella standing next to some white fellas. It's on video! "Any black man that stands with the f*** white little c* like that, youse can all get f*** too." They are Thorpe's words - not made up, no-one putting words in her mouth. She is a racist. If a white fella had said to another white fella "Any white man that stands with the f*** black little c*** like that, youse can all get f***** too." would be labeled a racist. Why does one rule apply to one person and not another?

 

[SSwans2011]

Why does one rule apply to one person and not another?

Historical and to this point perpetual power structures.

 

[Northalives]

I use the word “seems” to convey that it is my interpretation of her position (because I didn’t go and get quotes). That’s all it was in case I was misrepresenting her. I agree it is much stronger than “seems” but I’m naturally a cautious poster who is willing to say my interpretation is incorrect.

Except around usa gun rights. I’m somewhat less cautious there…

You are not misrepresenting her. She is a politician and a public figure therefore, the media, good bad and indifferent, scrutinise and report, sometimes to court sensationalism, sometimes without editorial comment and lots of the time, she is captured on film therefore, we know a lot more about her than we would if she was not politician.

This allows us to make a far better informed judgment as to who she is as do her speeches and behaviour in Parliament.

What we know is that she is erratic; one moment saying that she will not vote yes in the referendum, another moment saying she hasn't made up her mind, another day another change in stance saying she will abstain from voting in the Parliament on the voice. She freaks out at journalists who don't call her a legend. She goes into racist rants in public which are captured on video. She disrespects and aims a tirade of abuse at elders, the same people she says that she is fighting for, she uses and abuses a festival of celebration to make herself the centre of attraction (Gay and Lesbian Mardi Gras") and then lies through her teeth saying that it was a bunch of Indigenous gay people who first set up the Mardi Gras and on and on and on... and then to add insult to injury, some claim that she is misrepresented by the media who don't report her policies even though she is what can be described as a media tart and her "policies", ever changing as they are, are rammed down our throats every time she sees a camera and when there isn't one around, she goes out and performs some stunt or other to get into the limelight again!

As Big Papa Ted says, we shouldn't give her any oxygen but how the f*** can we ignore such disgraceful and insulting behaviour?

How can anyone be condemned for making a definitive pronouncement of the type of person she is given the mountain of evidence that is presented to us by her?