Forum

 
  Back to OzPolitic.com   Welcome, Guest. Please Login or Register
  Forum Home Album HelpSearch Recent Rules LoginRegister  
 

1  General Discussion / General Board / FutureTheLeftWant No2 Gone
 on: Today at 7:16am 
Started by Redmond Neck | Post by Redmond Neck  
Looks like FutureTheLeftWants new user name has been booted off the forum as expected for joining with a new user name while banned.




2  General Discussion / Federal Politics / Second Wave Independents Could Target Labor Seats
 on: Today at 6:51am 
Started by whiteknight | Post by whiteknight  
Teals eye Labor seats, saying Albanese deliberately funded them to fail

The Age
June 28, 2022


Three independent MPs say federal Labor is deliberately cutting their staff allocation to damage their electoral chances, while new Kooyong MP Monique Ryan has warned a second wave of independents could target Labor marginal seats in Melbourne at the 2025 election.

The expanded crossbench, which has grown to 12 seats in the lower house, is seeking an urgent meeting with Prime Minister Anthony Albanese - when he returns from Europe next week - following the decision to slash the number of parliamentary advisers from four per MP to one.

Dr Monique Ryan is the freshly minted member for Kooyong.


The new MPs will spend Tuesday and Wednesday in Canberra learning the ropes of parliament and on Thursday will be joined by the returning independent MPs and the Greens, where they will discuss their responses to staffing allocations.

Crossbench MPs in the lower house and the Senate, who will still have four electorate office staff, are furious about the move which they say will hamper their ability to do their job and could lead them to vote against government legislation they haven’t had time to assess.

Albanese dug in over the cuts to crossbench staffing allocation on Monday, declaring it wasn’t fair for crossbench politicians to have twice as many staff as government backbenchers - especially at a time when other areas of the public service have suffered cuts, leading to blowouts in passport, Centrelink and visa processing times.



But Ryan, who unseated former treasurer Josh Frydenberg, told The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald that “the savings involved are minimal” and “it’s a great shame that this is his [Albanese’s] first form of engagement - this is an attack on the crossbench”.

“This measure is aimed at decreasing the effectiveness of the community independents in particular,” she said.

“I do think if the prime minister demonstrated a willingness to work with community independents, that would be less likely to encourage people to feel there is a reason to stand against Labor incumbents.”



In a blunt warning to the Labor MPs in the neighbouring seats of Macnamara and Higgins, Ryan said: “This decision won’t help people like Josh [Burns] and Michelle [Ananda-Rajah] who have slim majorities.”

Sophie Scamps, new MP for Sydney seat Mackellar, wrote for the Herald that Labor “can see the two-party system is failing”.




“This is a political move to consolidate power in the two-party system and is designed to ultimately fend off potential independent challengers to the Labor Party at the next election by making current independents less effective.”

Warringah MP Zali Steggall said the decision to cut independents’ staff - while leaving opposition and government numbers untouched - “certainly appears to be a move against the independents”.

“I feel there is a disingenuous argument being run around these measures being about cost-cutting when cross bench staff are on the lowest ranks of payments compared to all other staff.”

The highest salary a political staff working for a crossbench MP can command is $162,375, whereas for an opposition staffer it is $192,407 and in government it is $270,710, according to the current enterprise agreement.


Mayo MP Rebekha Sharkie said she had been buoyed by the prime minister’s comments, during and soon after the election, about wanting to respect the contribution of the crossbench and work with them - and the decision to cut staff had dismayed her.

“We have to go to some way towards addressing the staffing issue to repair the relationship with the crossbench,” she said.

RELATED ARTICLE
Jacqui Lambie, Anthony Albanese, David Pocock
Political leadership
Furious crossbench senators threaten to vote against Labor legislation after staff cuts
Albanese said he did not buy the argument that independents and minor party MPs had to do more work than government or opposition representatives.

“This is a very recent phenomenon of an upping of parliamentary staff,” he told ABC radio.

“What concerns me is that [under] the Morrison government – at the same time as they were cutting Centrelink staff, people can’t get passports, visas can’t get processed – the only area of public service that saw an increase in staffing levels appears to have been parliamentary staff.”

3  General Discussion / General Board / Re: Trans 'Be yourself' freedom
 on: Today at 6:49am 
Started by Xavier | Post by Xavier  
mothra wrote Today at 12:08am:
Linus welcome to the forum. It's wonderful to have you here.

I don't think Linus is a Troll like FutureLeftWank,
just because he's dissagreeing with Grapps.
He has points.
You've already claimed one tortured unhappy vile soul to drag back to Monk's dungeon of mental rape and abuse.
Begone you Germaine Greer wannabe!
Before I cast you down into the fiery depths of hell filled with naked buff male Chippendales pumped with viagra and brains like sex-crazed Rednecks like AiA.

4  General Discussion / General Board / Re: Buyers remorse
 on: Today at 5:27am 
Started by Baronvonrort | Post by aquascoot  
the main problem is that there is a
social contagion.


an awkward girl who is not good looking and maybe has mild aspergers starts looking at instagram and thinks "well , i'm certainly not like those images of filtered beauty"

and she vibes with the attention and pats on the back for the "bravery" of coming out as "trans".

the teachers make a fuss
the doctors make a fuss.

she goes from a wallflower to someone getting attention.

other awkward girls with anxiety and mild aspergers and no social skills see that she is much happier now she is
"getting kudos and approval"
and they vibe with that

its a contagion.

is it harmful?

it may well be when they are 24, all alone, the peer approval has moved on, they are lonely, awkward and dont fit in and arent getting props from anyone.

if it is a fad and the left move onto a new toy (which they are prone to do), these girls could be left high and dry.

then they may self harm and the left (in their hypocricy) will say they self harmed because society is sooooo transphobic. Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes Roll Eyes

5  General Discussion / America / Re: Roe v Wade overturned
 on: Today at 5:20am 
Started by FutureTheLeftWant | Post by aquascoot  
the authorities have no place interfering in the doctor patient relationship regarding covid.
if a doctor and patient want to try some drug, its their business

the authorities have no place interfering in the doctor patient relationship regarding pregnancy.

now if the state wants to state that a baby can survive at 24 or 26 or 28 weeks of pregnancy, then it can be on the doctor to comply with that law and advise a woman who is 26 weeks "sorry , that child is now a child"

a bunch of 8 cells at 4 weeks is not a child.

its best politicians stay right out of these things.
they dont have the expertise.

as for supreme court judges.
please
they are as removed from "real america" as the royal family

6  General Discussion / America / Re: Roe v Wade overturned
 on: Today at 2:16am 
Started by FutureTheLeftWant | Post by Dnarever  
Ye Grappler wrote Today at 1:56am:
Dnarever wrote Today at 1:51am:
Ye Grappler wrote Today at 1:32am:
mothra wrote Today at 1:20am:
Ye Grappler wrote Today at 1:04am:
mothra wrote Today at 12:58am:
Here's where abortions are now banned or strictly limited, and where they may be soon



Abortion is now illegal or heavily restricted in at least 11 states following the Supreme Court's historic decision Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade. Twelve other states have laws in place that pave the way to quickly ban or severely restrict access to them, according to research from the Guttmacher Institute, a group that favors abortion rights. Several additional states appear likely to pass new laws.

The court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health effectively overturned the precedent set by the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which affirmed that a woman has a right to seek an abortion up until the point that the fetus could be "viable" outside of the uterus. It opened the way for states to enact many laws that were previously tied up in court, and to pass new ones.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/06/24/1107126432/abortion-bans-su...



Now that things have settled down a little



You mean now you're no longer arguing a position that was not only incorrect,?


I never argued otherwise... simply stated that abortion is not a right..... here it is a privilege....

Get over your wrongful use of the word 'prohibited' = prohibition.... abortion is NOT prohibited - it is restricted to specific circumstances....

Read your article...


For something like 98% of pregnant Women it is prohibited. No point in being pedantic about a few extreme exceptions that may or may not be available if common sense prevails.

Is a normal average pregnant woman prohibited from having an abortion in these states?

A = YES



All right, Jim - detail the states where it is not available under any circumstances = prohibition.  Of course it is prohibited for 98% of pregnant women - most of whom don't want it, and only a few of whom will fall outside the prescribed time periods in which they can get it.....

98% of women prohibited ... Jesus man - most of them don't want it!!  So - 2% - so it's NOT prohibited.  You can't have partial prohibition, and saying so is propaganda and not reporting facts.

**sighs** they just go on and on without a single thought in their heads.... listening to the propaganda without thought or consideration or even an attempt at analysis.


Quote:
and only a few of whom will fall outside the prescribed time periods


These prescribed time periods now go away. The time periods were meant to cope with Roe V Wade being in place and preventing a full ban starting at fertilization.

This is the not so brave new 1950's world the US are moving into.

7  General Discussion / America / Re: Roe v Wade overturned
 on: Today at 2:10am 
Started by FutureTheLeftWant | Post by Dnarever  
Ye Grappler wrote Today at 1:56am:
Dnarever wrote Today at 1:51am:
Ye Grappler wrote Today at 1:32am:
mothra wrote Today at 1:20am:
Ye Grappler wrote Today at 1:04am:
mothra wrote Today at 12:58am:
Here's where abortions are now banned or strictly limited, and where they may be soon



Abortion is now illegal or heavily restricted in at least 11 states following the Supreme Court's historic decision Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade. Twelve other states have laws in place that pave the way to quickly ban or severely restrict access to them, according to research from the Guttmacher Institute, a group that favors abortion rights. Several additional states appear likely to pass new laws.

The court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health effectively overturned the precedent set by the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which affirmed that a woman has a right to seek an abortion up until the point that the fetus could be "viable" outside of the uterus. It opened the way for states to enact many laws that were previously tied up in court, and to pass new ones.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/06/24/1107126432/abortion-bans-su...



Now that things have settled down a little



You mean now you're no longer arguing a position that was not only incorrect,?


I never argued otherwise... simply stated that abortion is not a right..... here it is a privilege....

Get over your wrongful use of the word 'prohibited' = prohibition.... abortion is NOT prohibited - it is restricted to specific circumstances....

Read your article...


For something like 98% of pregnant Women it is prohibited. No point in being pedantic about a few extreme exceptions that may or may not be available if common sense prevails.

Is a normal average pregnant woman prohibited from having an abortion in these states?

A = YES



All right, Jim - detail the states where it is not available under any circumstances = prohibition.  Of course it is prohibited for 98% of pregnant women - most of whom don't want it, and only a few of whom will fall outside the prescribed time periods in which they can get it.....

98% of women prohibited ... Jesus man - most of them don't want it!!  So - 2% - so it's NOT prohibited.  You can't have partial prohibition, and saying so is propaganda and not reporting facts.

**sighs** they just go on and on without a single thought in their heads.... listening to the propaganda without thought or consideration or even an attempt at analysis.


Quote:
detail the states where it is not available under any circumstances


You pedant point is faulty.

Do you agree that the had Alcohol prohibition in the 1920's ?

Quote:
Doctors were able to prescribe medicinal alcohol for their patients. After just six months of prohibition, over 15,000 doctors and 57,000 pharmacists received licenses to prescribe or sell medicinal alcohol.


By your logic there was no Alcohol prohibition in the USA in the 1920's.

8  General Discussion / America / Re: Roe v Wade overturned
 on: Today at 2:07am 
Started by FutureTheLeftWant | Post by mothra  
Pedantic is generous.

But you are an incredibly nice guy, Dna.

9  General Discussion / America / Re: Roe v Wade overturned
 on: Today at 2:02am 
Started by FutureTheLeftWant | Post by Dnarever  
Ye Grappler wrote Today at 1:48am:
mothra wrote Today at 1:43am:
Ye Grappler wrote Today at 1:32am:
mothra wrote Today at 1:20am:
Ye Grappler wrote Today at 1:04am:
mothra wrote Today at 12:58am:
Here's where abortions are now banned or strictly limited, and where they may be soon



Abortion is now illegal or heavily restricted in at least 11 states following the Supreme Court's historic decision Friday to overturn Roe v. Wade. Twelve other states have laws in place that pave the way to quickly ban or severely restrict access to them, according to research from the Guttmacher Institute, a group that favors abortion rights. Several additional states appear likely to pass new laws.

The court's ruling in Dobbs v. Jackson Women's Health effectively overturned the precedent set by the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, which affirmed that a woman has a right to seek an abortion up until the point that the fetus could be "viable" outside of the uterus. It opened the way for states to enact many laws that were previously tied up in court, and to pass new ones.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/06/24/1107126432/abortion-bans-su...



Now that things have settled down a little



You mean now you're no longer arguing a position that was not only incorrect,?


I never argued otherwise... simply stated that abortion is not a right..... here it is a privilege....

Get over your wrongful use of the word 'prohibited' = prohibition.... abortion is NOT prohibited - it is restricted to specific circumstances....

Read your article...


Just how wrong can you actually be?

I'm sorry, i tend only to read the first line of your posts, if that even. The rest slipped past me.

You are clearly wrong. Again.

How much wrong can one person be?


You, Lefty, Linus and Smith are always wrong... you've never been right yet, and you refuse to even consider reasonable discussion without your built-in problems coming out.

In which states is it absolutely prohibited?


In states where is is prohibited for everyone except medical necessity your argument is just being pedantic. For all intent and practice it is prohibited.

I few days ago in these states all women had this right now 99% don't. 

While it is good that a small number of women are not expected to die over it it's hardy in real terms a meaningful number.

Practically speaking it is banned.

10  General Discussion / America / Re: Roe v Wade overturned
 on: Today at 1:58am 
Started by FutureTheLeftWant | Post by mothra  
It's got to be Dunning-Krueger.