He has such a whiny voice when he espouses policy he just sounds negative. Both the major two parties have been good at whiteanting their leader and finally doing a Julius Caesar to him.
Aussie
- Thread starter Pegasus
- Start date
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 44,295
- Reaction score
- 1,172
- Points
- 133
I am allways surprised how both leaders are unpopular and when asked for reasons it's stuff like the sound of the voice . Both seem to be moderates neither seems to inspire.
The way anyone speaks, the accent affects me, I don't know about the other people who do not like both leaders. Turnbull sounds okay if with a slight upper crust accent, he's very rich. The other guy is mostly known as the son-in-law of the former Governor General, he has a disproportional large head, reminds me of a pre pubescent boy. I don't like President Trump's accent either, and the way he moves his tiny hands when he speaks. Turnbull is moderate in regard to some of his conservative fellows. When I vote, I don't vote for the leaders, I vote for policies, for a plan for future advancement. The actual members of the Parties, who those guys and some women are, I couldn't give a fuck.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 44,295
- Reaction score
- 1,172
- Points
- 133
So you believe the polices will be actioned in the way described during the election process?
Some will be. I didn't care for the leadership of Gillard but she got a lot of Labor policies pushed through. Her methods can be questioned. Now Rudd what did he do besides alienate most of his colleagues and say "I am sorry"
I was thinking about Rudd. His usage of Aussie vernacular was all wrong, he tried too hard to be a regular Aussie bloke and failed.
We are heading for Australia Day, and all that nonsense about changing the date, Invasion Day and so on is starting up again. I will tell you, whatever date PC mandates is Australia Day, I am going to stick with January 26th. Without the First Fleet landing at Port Jackson on January 26th, 1788, I wouldn't be here, and this country would not exist, just an island continent with a large arid zone in its centre.
We are heading for Australia Day, and all that nonsense about changing the date, Invasion Day and so on is starting up again. I will tell you, whatever date PC mandates is Australia Day, I am going to stick with January 26th. Without the First Fleet landing at Port Jackson on January 26th, 1788, I wouldn't be here, and this country would not exist, just an island continent with a large arid zone in its centre.
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 44,295
- Reaction score
- 1,172
- Points
- 133
Tamora
Retired Super Moderator, Member of the Month Aug
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 44,295
- Reaction score
- 1,172
- Points
- 133
The high level of immigration is causing debate . Since the vast majority of immigrants end up in the major cities where the infrastructure is stretched . Efforts to get them to settle long term in small cities seem to have largely failed . Some groups have had problems adjusting and issues like African street gangs pop up .
Some groups adjust relatively easily historically the British and Irish have been large and euro groups strongly represented . In recent times the Indian sub continent is the largest single group of immigrants and the chinese second . Over time this will cause cultural change . These groups do seem to fit in ok in general though . The Indians are quite visible one sees them in customer service ,taxis truck driving etc the chinese seem more common in professional and business areas . The Islanders and Kiwis are well represented and often seen in heavy physical labour situations.
Some groups adjust relatively easily historically the British and Irish have been large and euro groups strongly represented . In recent times the Indian sub continent is the largest single group of immigrants and the chinese second . Over time this will cause cultural change . These groups do seem to fit in ok in general though . The Indians are quite visible one sees them in customer service ,taxis truck driving etc the chinese seem more common in professional and business areas . The Islanders and Kiwis are well represented and often seen in heavy physical labour situations.
New Zealand is the back door for migrants to enter Australia. They stay in New Zealand for 2 years, get NZ citizenship, and hop on a plane and come to Australia. New Zealand and Australia have an open immigration policy with each other as far as living and working in each other's countries. A lot of Pacific Islanders like Samoans exploit this open immigration policy otherwise they wouldn't gain entry based on their skills.
Personally speaking, these immigrants from New Zealand are rubbish, more trouble than they are worth.
P.S I injured my left foot somehow, and am not very mobile, but the rest of me is fully functional.
Personally speaking, these immigrants from New Zealand are rubbish, more trouble than they are worth.
P.S I injured my left foot somehow, and am not very mobile, but the rest of me is fully functional.
Last edited:
That's nice. I will admit I don't like NZers, Pakeha and Maori alike, hate their accent. Love the country, hate the people. Now excuse me while I practice my Haka, Ringa pakia, Uma piraha, Turi whatia...
It is islands. Tasmania is an island, NZ, islands, UK, island, place I was born, island. It is men, I don't get along with men, I cannot like them. Women I am okay with. In NZ I stay with a friend, she lives in Auckland north of the Nippon Clipon. She is lovely, which is why I never get very far in NZ, I have to be within a few hours of Auckland. In NZ they love my accent, I don't sound Australian, more cultured and civilized. People talk about Australia's spiders, snakes, blue ringed octopus, Crocs, but I have never been bitten or attacked, in NZ I was bitten by a Weta just putting my hand into the letter box.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 44,295
- Reaction score
- 1,172
- Points
- 133
What a great aussie open tennis ,Woz wins her first major and becomes world number 1. It was hard fought in heat and humidity the runner up was hospitalised with exhaustion and dehydration.
Ashleigh Barty and Daria Gavrilova will lead Australia's charge in their Fed Cup clash with Ukraine as Sam Stosur continues her absence from the team.
World No.16 Barty and No.25 Gavrilova will be joined by Casey Dellacqua and Destanee Aiava for the World Group II first-round tie in Canberra on February 11 as Australia bid to re-join the Fed Cup elit
Craig McLachlan cleared of being a sexist jerk but his career is damaged.
Ashleigh Barty and Daria Gavrilova will lead Australia's charge in their Fed Cup clash with Ukraine as Sam Stosur continues her absence from the team.
World No.16 Barty and No.25 Gavrilova will be joined by Casey Dellacqua and Destanee Aiava for the World Group II first-round tie in Canberra on February 11 as Australia bid to re-join the Fed Cup elit
Craig McLachlan cleared of being a sexist jerk but his career is damaged.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2009
- Messages
- 44,295
- Reaction score
- 1,172
- Points
- 133
Some thoughts of a aussie journo/ academic .
Quote
[h=2]What the bill would mean[/h]The foreign interference bill, in its current form, suggests it should be criminal for anyone to “receive” and “handle” certain national security information. It would seem that by just receiving the filing cabinets and assessing what to publish, the ABC staff would be in breach of the provisions suggested in the bill.
Furthermore, this makes an already heavy-handed whistleblower regime from an international perspective even more draconian. It is sure to lose Australia several places on the Press Freedom Index if implemented as suggested.
The bill is an overreach in many respects. But one of the worst aspects, from a transparency and accountability point of view, is that it seeks to extend the draconian Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.
Section 70 makes it a crime, punishable by a maximum of two years in prison, for public servants to communicate or supply information to anyone outside government without permission. The ABC’s publication of the cabinet files clearly illustrates that media organisations with ethical and thorough editorial polices are perfectly capable of assessing what to publish.
The bigger picture is that the current bill is part of a pattern that started after the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001.
In our forthcoming book, In The Name of Security – Secrecy, Surveillance and Journalism, my colleagues and I assess how the anti-terror laws and mass surveillance technologies in the Five Eyes countries has impacted on in-depth public interest journalism. We also compare the Five Eyes with several BRICS countries and the situation in the European Union.
Our main conclusions are that the current fear-driven security environment has made it much harder for investigative journalists to hold governments and security agencies to account. This is partly due to anti-terror and security laws making it harder for whistleblowers to act.
Add to this the truly awesome powers of mass surveillance making it increasingly difficult for investigative journalists to grant anonymity to sources that require it for their own safety, and you end up with a very complex journalist-source situation.
Another important factor in Australia and the UK is that all national security agencies are exempt from Freedom of Information laws. This makes it virtually impossible to independently acquire information from the security branch of government.
The balance between national security and transparency is complex. As citizens, we want to feel safe and know what is being done to keep us safe. In our book, we have labelled this the “trust us” dilemma, meaning governments argue they can’t disclose what they are doing security-wise, lest the “bad guys” find out.
That leaves us needing to trust the government’s security actions and policies. But the problem is, how can we as citizens decide if we trust the government if we don’t have the information on which to base this decision?
There is no easy answer to this question. Political philosopher Giorgio Agamben takes our reasoning one step further when he argues that the liberal democratic world has been in a “state of exception” since September 11. This has granted powers to security agencies that are creeping increasingly closer to those of the totalitarian regimes in Europe in the 1930s.
Agamben traces various states of exception all the way back to Roman times. The pattern is similar through history: governments point to an “other” – often a hard-to-define enemy – as a reason for increased powers to the security apparatus. They are convinced they are doing the right thing.
The problem is that if we don’t roll back the strengthened security laws in times of lower threat, we start from a high level next time we enter a “state of exception”. This in turn can lead to a never-ending war on real or perceived threats where our cherished democratic civil liberties become part of the collateral damage.
If we allow the “state of exception” to become permanent, we risk allowing the terrorists to win.
Johan Lidberg Monash University.
Quote
[h=2]What the bill would mean[/h]The foreign interference bill, in its current form, suggests it should be criminal for anyone to “receive” and “handle” certain national security information. It would seem that by just receiving the filing cabinets and assessing what to publish, the ABC staff would be in breach of the provisions suggested in the bill.
Furthermore, this makes an already heavy-handed whistleblower regime from an international perspective even more draconian. It is sure to lose Australia several places on the Press Freedom Index if implemented as suggested.
The bill is an overreach in many respects. But one of the worst aspects, from a transparency and accountability point of view, is that it seeks to extend the draconian Section 70 of the Commonwealth Crimes Act.
Section 70 makes it a crime, punishable by a maximum of two years in prison, for public servants to communicate or supply information to anyone outside government without permission. The ABC’s publication of the cabinet files clearly illustrates that media organisations with ethical and thorough editorial polices are perfectly capable of assessing what to publish.
The bigger picture is that the current bill is part of a pattern that started after the terrorist attacks in the US on September 11, 2001.
In our forthcoming book, In The Name of Security – Secrecy, Surveillance and Journalism, my colleagues and I assess how the anti-terror laws and mass surveillance technologies in the Five Eyes countries has impacted on in-depth public interest journalism. We also compare the Five Eyes with several BRICS countries and the situation in the European Union.
Our main conclusions are that the current fear-driven security environment has made it much harder for investigative journalists to hold governments and security agencies to account. This is partly due to anti-terror and security laws making it harder for whistleblowers to act.
Add to this the truly awesome powers of mass surveillance making it increasingly difficult for investigative journalists to grant anonymity to sources that require it for their own safety, and you end up with a very complex journalist-source situation.
Another important factor in Australia and the UK is that all national security agencies are exempt from Freedom of Information laws. This makes it virtually impossible to independently acquire information from the security branch of government.
The balance between national security and transparency is complex. As citizens, we want to feel safe and know what is being done to keep us safe. In our book, we have labelled this the “trust us” dilemma, meaning governments argue they can’t disclose what they are doing security-wise, lest the “bad guys” find out.
That leaves us needing to trust the government’s security actions and policies. But the problem is, how can we as citizens decide if we trust the government if we don’t have the information on which to base this decision?
There is no easy answer to this question. Political philosopher Giorgio Agamben takes our reasoning one step further when he argues that the liberal democratic world has been in a “state of exception” since September 11. This has granted powers to security agencies that are creeping increasingly closer to those of the totalitarian regimes in Europe in the 1930s.
Agamben traces various states of exception all the way back to Roman times. The pattern is similar through history: governments point to an “other” – often a hard-to-define enemy – as a reason for increased powers to the security apparatus. They are convinced they are doing the right thing.
The problem is that if we don’t roll back the strengthened security laws in times of lower threat, we start from a high level next time we enter a “state of exception”. This in turn can lead to a never-ending war on real or perceived threats where our cherished democratic civil liberties become part of the collateral damage.
If we allow the “state of exception” to become permanent, we risk allowing the terrorists to win.
Johan Lidberg Monash University.
