Board Moderators
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Stubby

  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. It has failed. I don't know what their reasons are yet.
  4. 40 minutes to decision time...
  5. 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".
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. That's why the govt is arguing standing. They know that if the HCA applies Williams the govt will lose.
  9. Abbott is such a twit. Shorten has let him blather on about needing to release his proof until Abbott is blue in the face and then he shows his papers. Labor knows how to push Abbott's buttons.
  10. [MOD] Alright folks, let's tone it down. Enough with the personal attacks please. [/MOD]
  11. [MOD] Some posts deleted as referenced site was trying to install malware. Please do not refer to that site again. [/MOD]
  12. No doubt. Meanwhile, on the lack of ethical integrity front, Morrison confirms that he will vote no regardless of the outcome of the postal survey. He also says he won't be campaigning because he has more important things to worry about as treasurer. Ugh.
  13. So the first High Court hearings began yesterday into the citizenship debacle. Two notables changed their tunes when they were under oath. Canavan admitted he has been an Italian citizen since he was 2, after earlier blaming his mum. Roberts admitted that he had not formally renounced his British citizenship until after the election. Fucking lying turds.
  14. What made the poster issue worse was old Uncle Mal coming out and saying it was fair comment in the debate.
  15. I was actually amazed that he did. But, yeah, nice to see.
  16. If the HCA applies the thinking they applied in Culletton, all of those MPs found to not have renounced their foreign citizenship will be forced to resign as ineligible. The test the HCA set out in Culletton was that the compliance with the Constitution under s 44 must be at the time of the election. It cannot be retrospective.
  17. [MOD] This morning there are more than 20 reports of debating, trolling and the like regarding this thread. Any person not adhering to the rules of this thread will be suspended for the remainder of the season. The rules of this thread are simple. You may post your rants. You may not debate said rants. You may not attempt to persuade someone that their rant is wrong. You may not refer to, post details of or even reference the existence of leaked episodes (as is the case across this entire forum). No further warnings will be issued. [/MOD]
  18. The plebiscite is merely an expensive distraction. No plebiscite is needed to change the Marriage Act. Howard changed the definition in 2004 without a plebiscite. If parliament took a vote the definition could be substantially changed in about a day or two. Turnbull's hands are tied by the religious conservatives in his party, becuase the LNP is more beholden to that group than the ALP is to the unions. There remains no sensible, objective reason to vote No.
  19. [MOD] Just hours after I reminded users that this is not a debate thread, there is a lengthy derail by debate. Suspensions will now be issued without further warnings. [/MOD]
  20. [MOD] Can we please not debate stuff in this thread? I don't know how many more times we need to say it - this thread is not for debate or for trying to change other peoples' minds. There are plenty of other threads for that purpose. This thread is to blow off a little steam about the show (within the forum rules) and not have to defend your position. Thanks in advance. [/MOD]
  21. Yep. Brings to mind the recent adage that one is entitled to their own beliefs, but not their own facts. Finding out that he considers those things to be one and the same is not all that surprising.
  22. Seen his latest? Apparently he is "choosing to believe that he is not British" therefore he is not.
  23. [MOD] Again, this thread is not a debate forum. Rant as much as you want, but do not try and change people's minds or debate points. There are other threads for that. [/MOD]
  24. Thankfully that will never happen, as sugar does not exist for me.
  25. [MOD] A reminder to everyone in this thread. This thread is not about criticising someone's else's rants. The thread is not a debate thread. It is a place where people who feel the need to rant about something they didn't like about the show can do so without having to endure critiques about their rant. As the show is being aired, anyone who feels the need to debate issues can do so in an appropriate thread which has been set up for that purpose - there are hundreds of such threads so there is no need to interfered with this thread. If posters can respect that, it will make the running of the forum easier for everyone. Thanks. [/MOD]