Federal Election 2013
How is that dark ages shit, reading it to me it sounds like he’s saying that it’s an outdated way of thinking that people are ultimately responsible for what they do with their own bodies and the idea that a womans natural standpoint is denying sex or a mans natural perogattive is to demand it are indeed outdated and dark ages thinking. Explain to me how you perceive it differently?
Reads to me (and in context it was said in at the time*) like he is saying that women don’t have the absolute right to say no to sex. To me that is thinking from the dark ages. The caveats he put on it are irrelevant. It is black and white; women do have the absolute right whatever the circumstances.
*It was said on Q&A, he was responding after another panellist answered a question put to them and they had said that married women have an obligation to just ‘do it’ even if they don’t want to…
And here’s an oldy, but a goody!!!!! just for you, cords!!!!!
‘I was just stoned, that’s why I voted greens!’ Hahaha
‘I think that I am a fair dinkum environmentalist’- Tony Abbott
Seems Abbot would have to have been smoking the green stuff to actually believe that.
Here’s a Boscastle Pie for Kevins Buddy, Bill!!!!! What a piece of work that guy is!!!!!
And here’s an oldy, but a goody!!!!! just for you, cords!!!!!
‘I was just stoned, that’s why I voted greens!’ Hahaha
‘I think that I am a fair dinkum environmentalist’- Tony AbbottSeems Abbot would have to have been smoking the green stuff to actually believe that.
environmentalist |enˌvīrənˈmen(t)l-ist; -ˌvī(ə)rn-|
noun
1 a person who is concerned with or advocates the protection of the environment.
2 a person who considers that environment, as opposed to heredity, has the primary influence on the development of a person or group.
DERIVATIVES
environmentalism |ənˈvaɪrənˈmɛn(t)lˈɪzəm| |ənˈvaɪ(ə)rnˈmɛn(t)lˈɪzəm| |ɛnˈvaɪrənˈmɛn(t)lˈɪzəm| |ɛnˈvaɪ(ə)rnˈmɛn(t)lˈɪzəm| noun
Could be true?????
/thread
^that shit’s scary!
One of the Hotham Boardriders from back in the day, I think he was the first President maybe, is running in the Federal election for the Palmer party. I don’t know the guy, never met him.
He uses his experience from snowboarding as a basis as to how government should or could run.
Interesting read. LINK TO PAGE
Thor Prohaska - Snowbording Experience
When I was a lone snowboarder I had no organisational problems with other snowboarders. As the number of snowboarders slowly grew we began to organise things together. We would sort things out just by talking about them the way any group of friends or family do. We were a tribe and to make our bond stronger we had a common enemy in the form of the authorities that ran the ski resorts as they had banned us from most of the ski lifts. So to lobby for change we formed an organisation known as the Snowboard Riders of Victoria (SRV). We then became part of the mainstream by affiliating with the Victorian Ski Association to give more leverage to our lobbying efforts.The SRV had the normal structure of any traditional hierarchical organisation. There was a president, vice-president, secretary, treasurer, committee members and ordinary members. At the start this arrangement was working fine and we were making progress towards our goal of promoting snowboarding and opening up all Victorian alpine resorts to snowboarders. Then in the late 1980’s snowboarding started to become popular and the money began flowing into the sport. All of a sudden people who had been open about what they were doing started to withhold information and to scheme and plan things to suit their own ends. This was not a surprise as it is a common, but lower, expression of human nature. As a result we started to get decisions being made that were not as effective as they had been before because all the facts of the issue were not being revealed.
In an attempt to sort out some issues that had gone off the rails we found ourselves going back to the way we made decisions when we were a ‘tribe’ which meant that only those people who had an interest in an issue got to vote. This removed those people who didn’t really know about the issue or didn’t really care or had some other agenda to push that had nothing directly to do with the merits of the issue. This established the consensus group.
Then we found that we needed to establish at the start of the process, before there was any discussion or voting, what the required level of consensus would be when it was time to vote. It is a fact that some issues are more important than other and therefore require a greater level of consensus while lesser issues require a lower levels of consensus. The level is obviously somewhere between 51% and 100% . With this understanding in place those who are on the loosing side of the vote were more likely to support the groups decision.
Next we would ensure that there was clear agreement on the timeframe available to resolve issues. As some issues are very time sensitive they must be decided by a deadline. Those issues that aren’t time sensitive can be allowed to run until the required level of consensus has been reached. Once we had this established it made for an easier resolution process.
So by this stage of the process only those people with a genuine interest were involved, the level of agreement needed was known and we knew when it had to be agreed by. All that remained was to resolve the issue.
If somebody had a problem with the issue then they had to actually state what their objection was and argue their case. This removed those people who objected for reasons that had nothing to do with the merits of the issue. For example because the person who was coordinating the issue didn’t buy them a beer or reminded them of somebody they didn’t like or because they had their own idea that wasn’t as good but they liked it better. What was very interesting was that when a person who objected to an idea couldn’t argue their case, because they didn’t really have a case, then they realised that there was no further point in objecting and the rest of the group no longer took them seriously.
The next type of objection came from a person who was able to argue their point. This generated healthy debate that resulted in either the person being persuaded that the majority position was right or they persuaded the majority that their position was superior and as a result the group changed their mind.
The third type of objection came from a person who just said that it was their gut instinct or intuition telling them that it ‘didn’t feel good’. As they were unable to say why they felt this way it was not possible to engage in debate with them. Initially when this happened the person who said that it ‘didn’t feel good’ said go ahead and do it because they couldn’t offer an argument. However, as the decision was implemented and more became known about it then the flaw in the idea that had ‘not felt good’ became evident. As a result in future instances we listened to those people whose gut instinct or intuition sensed something was not right and take more care and time to investigate an issue further before implementing it.
The process described briefly above is based on the way humans naturally work together and therefore it is a more effective approach. It has been from this and similar experiences in my professional and personal life that has led me to the conclusion that there is no reason why this approach couldn’t be scaled up to resolve local, regional or national issues.
Then, as often happens in life, the unexpected happened and I was invited to be a candidate for the United Australia Party (now known as the Palmer United Party). Those who know me were surprised, because from a policy perspective there are numerous issues on which Clive Palmer and I come from different sides of the political divide.
However, last year when I saw Clive stand up for what was right at the federal liberal party conference by arguing lobbyists should be banned from holding senior roles in the Liberal party I cheered. And I was even more impressed when at the first United Australia Party press conference he said that we needed a contest of ideas and that we should all work together in the national interest and not listen to the political advisers who have hijacked the policy agenda.
I believe that Clive wants the best outcome for Australia and is not interested in playing political party games. This mirrors my thinking exactly. Why can’t we all work together and be allies on one issue, adversaries on the next, and equally puzzled or undecided on another? The idea that you must swallow the whole party platform irrespective of your real position is, in my opinion, folly.
I know that a lot of us have a lot of good ideas. But no one person or group has all the answers. However, I strongly believe that together, all of us do have all the answers.
Now the Palmer United Party is ‘Bringing People Together’ to make this happen.
In 1972 they said, “Its Time”. I say today “It’s about time” we had a political party like the PUP that puts the people and their ideas, issues & policies first!
So if you feel that what I’m doing is of value ( not to mention that if we can slow global warming there will be more snow ) then you could vote for the PUP in this coming election
Link to his home page HERE
Ohhh, and if ya think that Rudd is no advocate, then who’s left to vote for?????
As our 17year old (not yet able to vote but keenly interested) keeps reminding us, we should focus on our local candidates. he observes “the people” are focusing on the leaders, both of whom can and do, change at the drop of a hat.
Reasonable advice, probably. A local candidate/member is supposed to represent the interests of his/her community. Our local member does a fantastic job. Do I respect the party/leader he is aligned with? Possibly not. Do I respect other potential candidates, his adversaries, and the platforms they present for our perusal? Probably less so, though I might align myself with their party at some higher level.
Then there are the negative ads. Please. Show us some respect as a nation and cut that crap. Nothing more likely to change my mind than this total put down. Negative feedback loop. 
How is that dark ages shit, reading it to me it sounds like he’s saying that it’s an outdated way of thinking that people are ultimately responsible for what they do with their own bodies and the idea that a womans natural standpoint is denying sex or a mans natural perogattive is to demand it are indeed outdated and dark ages thinking. Explain to me how you perceive it differently?
Reads to me (and in context it was said in at the time*) like he is saying that women don’t have the absolute right to say no to sex. To me that is thinking from the dark ages. The caveats he put on it are irrelevant. It is black and white; women do have the absolute right whatever the circumstances.
*It was said on Q&A, he was responding after another panellist answered a question put to them and they had said that married women have an obligation to just ‘do it’ even if they don’t want to…
Crackers don’t think I’m defending the guy but to me it read the way I explained it and couldn’t see the issue with it. The guy gets foot in mouth disease and is by and large a fcukwit but then so is Rudd but Milne makes both of them look like the sort of person I’d like to have a beer with. I cannot stand the greens, they’re quasi communistic and would chop off a nose to spite a face, I couldn’t be happier if the lot of them fell into a woodchipper in the Amazon basin whilst protesting the right to life of a prevalent brazilian butt worm that Milne uses in conjunction with wheat germ and ant piss milkshake and a poodle shit facemask as part of a general health and liver cleansing regime.
Who am I going to vote for, I have no idea and to be honest in my electorate there isn’t much point, good old Bronwyn Bishop has a lifetime tenure here, I’ll see what independents are on the ballot I guess but then mull over the senate vote a little more carefully.
Ohhh, and if ya think that Rudd is no advocate, then who’s left to vote for?????
Not Christine Milne!!!!! Please don’t say that ya gonna back the Greens?????
As our 17year old (not yet able to vote but keenly interested) keeps reminding us, we should focus on our local candidates. he observes “the people” are focusing on the leaders, both of whom can and do, change at the drop of a hat.
Reasonable advice, probably. A local candidate/member is supposed to represent the interests of his/her community. Our local member does a fantastic job. Do I respect the party/leader he is aligned with? Possibly not. Do I respect other potential candidates, his adversaries, and the platforms they present for our perusal? Probably less so, though I might align myself with their party at some higher level.
Then there are the negative ads. Please. Show us some respect as a nation and cut that crap. Nothing more likely to change my mind than this total put down. Negative feedback loop.
Most definitely look toward the Local Candidates, but at the end of the day, just like any organisation, the big decisions come from the top!!!!! Like it or not, they always have, always will!!!!!
I really love Kevin’s new “Positive” TV Commercial too!!!!!
ugh bronwyn bishop! That is sad…
Having said that,being overseas, I’m enrolled at my mum’s address which is Phillip Ruddock’s seat :-(
His butt is even more well worn into his seat in parliament than B. Bishops!
Are you going to do a postal vote Cords? Or not bother?
Anyone listen to Hack on Triple J tonight?????
The Labor Party in Western Sydney are usin American Tele Marketing Programs, then getting Chinese Volunteers to ring Chinese Speaking Residents and tryin to convert them over to Labor!!!!!
They asked a few of the volunteers what they thought about Kevin Rudd, and the majority didn’t even know who he was!!!!! 