Stubby

Board Moderators
  • Content count

    9,609
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

1 Follower

About Stubby

  • Rank
    The Night is Dark and Full of Growlers

Contact Methods

  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Perth, Western Australia
  • Interests
    Reading, Writing, Movies, VideoGames, Internets

Recent Profile Visitors

14,032 profile views
  1. Hang in there mate. It will come
  2. Unless someone is going to gaol for saying something, free speech is not infringed. Disagreement is not an infringement of free speech.
  3. So the poor little snowflake Barnaby has had a whinge about people chanting slogans near him. Reap what you sow, mate.
  4. Got it. I don't agree. But I do say that the modern right doesn't seem to think it has to justify it's opinions. Because the modern right thinks being asked to justify an opinion is bullying and an attempt to shut down free speech. Which is two F grades for the price of one.
  5. So you were using it ironically then. How ironic.
  6. OK then. Why did you call me "comrade"? What did you intend it to mean?
  7. If they are so unsure, then are they not paying attention. Public opinion has been painfully clear. The first phrase of your sentence implies that we don't do evidence. And then, in a breathtaking example of hypocrisy, you imply that I am a communist by calling me "comrade" - without any evidence at all to support your suggestion. Have you some evidence to support the suggestion that I am a communist? Or are you just trotting out the Murdoch Mantra that anyone who is not supportive of the LNP is a communist?
  8. The conservatives call it the "Party Room". Which sounds like a nightclub, but probably is not.
  9. The Flux philosophy would lead to nothing ever being achieved. I agree that the LNP took a plebiscite took to the last election. There are a number of issues with the remainder of your comment: The postal survey is not a plebiscite. The LNP won government by just 1 seat - hardly what I would call a ringing endorsement of their policies. The election also produced the senate, with all of the senators elected to keep their promises as well. The very simplistic idea that the LNP promised it so the rest of Australia should tow the line ignores the role of the Senate. The LNP also promised a bunch of other things, which it has reneged on. This link contains a list both major parties' policies. Are we to have plebiscites on all of these things? Have the LNP made an attempt to make all of these promises law? In short, the argument that the LNP govt is simply doing as it promised is not well thought out. As for this being a "left leaning" board, I say that this is an "evidence leaning" board.
  10. Can't agree with that I'm afraid. By that logic, we need a postal survey on every issue, which would obviate the need for a parliament in the first place.
  11. It has failed. I don't know what their reasons are yet.
  12. 40 minutes to decision time...
  13. It seems that one way or another we will know tomorrow. The HC has said it will deliver it's reasons tomorrow. That means they think the Plaintiffs have not proved their case, or that it is obvious that the govt has blatantly done wrong. I note that the main reason the govt argued that it was "urgent" was that "urgency is relative".
  14. k, My take is that the postal survey stands on the brink of being shut down by the Court. The main reason I think that the survey will die is the reasoning of the Court in the Williams case (the chaplaincy challenge). It all has to do with whether the govt of the day had the power to use the funds in the manner it did. In Williams, the Court said no. On the evidence discussed in the transcript, I think the govt is pushing the proverbial uphill. I also think that all of the parliamentarians with questionable citizenship will be kicked out of parliament. If the HCA applies the reasoning in Culleton (from earlier this year) then I cannot see how any of them were validly elected. in Culleton the Court said that the only fact that matters on this issue is "was the (politician) a valid candidate on the day of the election"? Intent does not matter and events after the election did not matter. I may of course be wrong - I'm not a constitutional lawyer - but purely on the evidence and the application of precedent, that is what I think will happen.
  15. Hearing Transcript, Day 1. The standing issue was fully argued yesterday morning. The first plaintiffs ran varying points on the Williams issue in the afternoon, with some arguments crossing into legislative authority issues for the AEC and AS. In the afternoon, junior counsel for the first plaintiffs argued the legislative issues in more detail. Counsel for the second plaintiffs took the Court to the decision making process of the Finance Minister directly, relying on his "reason" for making the funding available. In this regard, the decision to release the funding could only be made if the need for the funding was "urgent" and "unforseen" Cormann's official reason was: "These circumstances meet the requirements of section 10 of the Act regarding the expenditure being urgent because it was unforeseen." Amateur hour. Will be interesting to see where the defendants go today.