Support NeoGAF

[bobnowhere]

They can't seriously be blaming the lack of a science minister on worst member of parliament finally getting the boot she long deserved! Sounds like some idiot, probably from her office just realised he/she no longer has a job and trying to blame it on everything apart from the departing local member.

You have to wonder what Mirabella had on the Liberal Party, airdropped into a safe LIberal seat that has been in Lib/nat hands since the 30's and apparently she is even talking about running again in 3 years. Though I imagine she will be looking for nice safe seat in Melbourne to be dropped into again, losing it again at some point in the future.

 

[Yagharek]

I think I'd rather no science minister than Mirabella.

 

[Jintor]

Lol guess who's actually the Minister for Women's Issues now

TONY ABBOTT

Also: Indigenous Affairs, Deregulation, National Security, State Governments

However, the Science portfolio has been clarified to exist mostly in its current state with Ian MacFarlane. Multicultural Affairs, Disability, Aged Care, Housing and Migrant/Refugee Settlements got folded into Social Services (Kevin Andrews)

 

[hidys]

Why dont we have smart mega rich?

This is what happens when your 'intelligence' is based on paying for land to dig up shit from and selling it...

And I love the public service is just becomming another political tool... First order of the day? Fire the old lot and put in people who come up with frank and fearless advice you agree with.

There is Graeme Wood co-founder of Guardian Australia and man who gave $1.6 million to the Greens in 2010. Dick Smith as well is involved in a few progressive causes. It is just that they are the minority.

 

[Dead Man]

Lol guess who's actually the Minister for Women's Issues now

TONY ABBOTT

Also: Indigenous Affairs, Deregulation, National Security, State Governments

However, the Science portfolio has been clarified to exist mostly in its current state with Ian MacFarlane. Multicultural Affairs, Disability, Aged Care, Housing and Migrant/Refugee Settlements got folded into Social Services (Kevin Andrews)

You couldn't write it. :/

 

[Fusebox]

Lol guess who's actually the Minister for Women's Issues now

TONY ABBOTT

Also: Indigenous Affairs, Deregulation, National Security, State Governments

However, the Science portfolio has been clarified to exist mostly in its current state with Ian MacFarlane. Multicultural Affairs, Disability, Aged Care, Housing and Migrant/Refugee Settlements got folded into Social Services (Kevin Andrews)

No words...

 

[markot]

HE HAS DAUGHTERS HOW CAN HE BE SEXIST? HE DIDNT KILL THEM!

 

[PhantomZone]

We survived the first "official" day of his leadership, i think Australia will survive....

 

[Fredescu]

We survived the first "official" day of his leadership, i think Australia will survive....

High praise.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

We survived the first "official" day of his leadership, i think Australia will survive....

Can you keep posting words to this effect every week or so? Just as a reminder? Thank you.

 

[hidys]

We survived the first "official" day of his leadership, i think Australia will survive....

I'm glad your holding him to such high standards.

 

[Ventron]

I'm glad your holding him to such high standards.

An echo chamber that brews fear non-stop will do that to a person.

 

[The Librarian]

Lol guess who's actually the Minister for Women's Issues now

TONY ABBOTT

Also: Indigenous Affairs, Deregulation, National Security, State Governments

However, the Science portfolio has been clarified to exist mostly in its current state with Ian MacFarlane. Multicultural Affairs, Disability, Aged Care, Housing and Migrant/Refugee Settlements got folded into Social Services (Kevin Andrews)

Hold on here.

Okay, now, see, I may be crazy here (and this could my silly woman's thought processes acting up), but shouldn't the minister of women's issues be...you know...a woman?

 

[Whiteshirt]

Yes I think Australia will survive. The question is whether things, such as economic equality, education, infrastructure, environmental concerns, will improve or get worse. Who knows but at the very least we're pretty sure internet infrastructure is not going to get any better.

That's where people get worried considering the Liberal party generally have little concern for these sort of things. Sorry you can't understand that poster PhantomZone. Keep on doing drive-by postings.

Also: answer the question you were asked in the previous page.

 

[markot]

An echo chamber that brews fear non-stop will do that to a person.

Unsubscribe from liberal mailing lists then.

 

[Shaneus]

Can you keep posting words to this effect every week or so? Just as a reminder? Thank you.

So when he stops, we're dead?

 

[TriangleOfCorruption]

An echo chamber that brews fear non-stop will do that to a person.

Odd that Gillard was held to higher standards by the right then

 

[shanshan310]

We survived the first "official" day of his leadership, i think Australia will survive....

The Carbon Tax, the Clean Energy Corporation, the Climate Change Authority and the Climate Commission didn't.

 

[Ventron]

Odd that Gillard was held to higher standards by the right then

Gillard set her own standards, for example by promising no carbon tax, and a surplus in 2013.

 

[Whiteshirt]

Standards like when you say "no Carbon Tax under a government I lead", you don't then introduce one, and when you say you'll deliver a surplus in 2013, you'll actually deliver one? Not exactly the 1000m medley here...

She didn't introduce a carbon tax. She later said, I believe in the next parliamentary meeting or something before the election:
“I don’t rule out the possibility of legislating a Carbon Pollution Reduction Scheme, a market-based mechanism,” she said of the next parliament. “I rule out a carbon tax.”

And she did exactly that. Pricing carbon is not the same as a tax, despite what the Liberal Party wants everyone to think. If the media wanted to break Gillard down, that's exactly what they achieved and made a fantastic narrative.

At the end of the day, it is Labor's fault for being unable to explain their own policies and achievements to the mass public. But in that case, she did absolutely nothing wrong. Its one of those hilarious political narratives that have become frequently common that don't have a single ounce of truth in it (like how boat people are so disastrous to Australia and surpluses are 100% reflective of good economic management).

 

[Dryk]

Gillard set her own standards, for example by promising no carbon tax, and a surplus in 2013.

Delivering a surplus regardless of the damage it could do just because you promised is reckless and irresponsible.

 

[user_nat]

So Palmer might not get in after all.. 3 votes ahead currently.

I think I know about 3 people that didn't vote also..

 

[TriangleOfCorruption]

Gillard set her own standards, for example by promising no carbon tax, and a surplus in 2013.

When the alternative to the carbon tax (which was/is slated to very quickly morph into an ETS, which until recently had bipartisan support) was continued inaction on climate change, and when reaching surplus against overwhelming advice from economists not to would have likely caused massive cuts to the public service for a barely perceptible benefit, I'd call both of those broken promises good governance.

Not even mentioning the political climate when Gillard made the carbon tax promise was very different from the realities of a hung parliament.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Gillard set her own standards, for example by promising no carbon tax, and a surplus in 2013.

Delivering a surplus regardless of the damage it could do just because you promised is reckless and irresponsible.

So she (and Swan) probably shouldn't have promised one in the first place. Stupid and unnecessary capitulation to a pointless goal. Almost as stupid as the Coalition's staggering hypocrisy on the matter. As for the carbon tax, the context of that statement has been pointed out to Ventron a number of times in this thread, but I guess Tories are nothing if not wilful

 

[Ventron]

Delivering a surplus regardless of the damage it could do just because you promised is reckless and irresponsible.

When the alternative to the carbon tax (which was/is slated to very quickly morph into an ETS, which until recently had bipartisan support) was continued inaction on climate change, and when reaching surplus against overwhelming advice from economists not to would have likely caused massive cuts to the public service for a barely perceptible benefit, I'd call both of those broken promises good governance.

The point was that she set her own standards through her own promises, it wasn't caused by people being so negative towards her that they ended up in fits of fear the first day she became PM.

As for the carbon tax, the context of that statement has been pointed out to Ventron a number of times in this thread, but I guess Tories are nothing if not wilful

Forgive me for not accepting the argument of semantics when I've been dinged in this very thread over the argument of semantics.
Here, here, here and here.

 

[tri_willy]

abbott being the minister for women's issues??? this is iron monk madness of the highest order!!!

 

[TriangleOfCorruption]

The point was that she set her own standards through her own promises, it wasn't caused by people being so negative towards her that they ended up in fits of fear the first day she became PM.

My point was that I think it is a good thing she reneged on those promises in the face of changing circumstances, and that it was not a justification to ignore the merits of those shifts and focus on the promise itself for years in a very loud echo chamber.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

Forgive me for not accepting the argument of semantics when I've been dinged in this very thread over the argument of semantics.
Here, here, here and here.

I'm pretty sure a winking smiley face is the universal symbol for unforgiving fury. Anyway, here's a recap of the semantics:
- Gillard's statement was in response to a question about a Greens' policy which aimed to price carbon at the consumption level. She proceeded to say that she would aim to put a price on carbon.
- In many ways, the Carbon Tax was similar to a tax, albeit aimed at the production level as opposed to the Greens' proposal. Technically though it was not legally considered a tax. Obviously, once it fully transitioned to a floating price the tax label loses almost all relevance.

Basically, even ignoring the "under a government I lead" part of the quote and what that meant in a hung parliament, this was not something like "no GST ever ever". I do think that making such a definitive statement on the issue was some sub-par politics, but the policy wasn't what it was made out to be. It may have had webbed feet, feathers and a beak like a duck, it may even have looked suspiciously like one from a distance but in actuality it was a swan (lol) that was clubbed over the head for being ugly before it could sprout its beautiful adult plumage.

 

[Dead Man]

An echo chamber that brews fear non-stop will do that to a person.

Rather than whine about an echo chamber, people could join the conversation. I realise that is more difficult than drive by posting, but it is much more rewarding.

 

[Jintor]

Goodbye, Climate Comission

 

[CrazedProfessional]

Rather than whine about an echo chamber, people could join the conversation. I realise that is more difficult than drive by posting, but it is much more rewarding.

He's too busy reading more important things to be a constructive member of this thread

 

[Dryk]

Goodbye, Climate Comission

I want "The Green Wedding" to become a thing now

 

[markot]

The sad thing about Indonesia getting angry at us, is that it just makes the government more popular.

Australians are weird.

 

[Elaugaufein]

The sad thing about Indonesia getting angry at us, is that it just makes the government more popular.

Australians are weird.

Not the word I would have chosen.

 

[Agyar]

If people stop believing in Ventron he will cease to exist. Hopefully.

 

[lexi]

ACT looks set to pass marriage equality very soon. Abbott is already talking about a high court challenge.

And some deluded fuckwits think gay marriage will still happen under Abbott?

 

[Yagharek]

Think of the children!

 

[Dryk]

ACT looks set to pass marriage equality very soon. Abbott is already talking about a high court challenge.

And some deluded fuckwits think gay marriage will still happen under Abbott?

SA used to be the socially progressive state :'(

The ACT will be able to say they tried, that's all anyone can ask of them right now.

 

[Ventron]

Rather than whine about an echo chamber, people could join the conversation. I realise that is more difficult than drive by posting, but it is much more rewarding.

It isn't. It really isn't. How many minds have I opened or changed in this thread?
I did try to engage in good conversation before the election. It didn't exactly work like a house on fire then, but it wasn't as bad as this thread is now post-election.
I agree it is more difficult and needs more effort, but the problem is there is nothing to gain from this. We all have better uses for our time. There is no conversation to join and indeed people don't really want one:

If people stop believing in Ventron he will cease to exist. Hopefully.

 

[Whiteshirt]

Goodbye, Climate Comission

The comments are fantastic but I'll let you in on a secret next time you guys try reading the comments. Most of these comments are actually from LNP and ALP staffers. Now I can't really prove it but I do know someone who works a staffer for a currently elected politician who basically does that.

It'll explain why the comments are so brain dead and nothing but talking points.

It isn't. It really isn't. How many minds have I opened or changed in this thread?
I did try to engage in good conversation before the election. It didn't exactly work like a house on fire then, but it wasn't as bad as this thread is now post-election.
I agree it is more difficult and needs more effort, but the problem is there is nothing to gain from this. We all have better uses for our time. There is no conversation to join and indeed people don't really want one:

People write you off because people in the thread and yourself can't agree on "semantics" that should be very clear cut. Like that whole intimidation =/= censorship thing.

I wasn't really keeping track on the conversation, so I don't know the entire context, but when I last checked suppression of speech or other public communication was the definition of censorship. If you intimidate someone and their family so they don't say what they want to say, that is basically trying to suppress what they want to say to the wider community. When you seem to believe that intimidation for the purpose of silencing someone and censorship are different things, I can see how people just write you off as some Tory Talking Point Machine.

 

[A More Normal Bird]

It isn't. It really isn't. How many minds have I opened or changed in this thread?
I did try to engage in good conversation before the election. It didn't exactly work like a house on fire then, but it wasn't as bad as this thread is now post-election.
I agree it is more difficult and needs more effort, but the problem is there is nothing to gain from this. We all have better uses for our time. There is no conversation to join and indeed people don't really want one:

I don't think Agyar speaks for all of us. I believe you have engaged in good conversation in this thread but on the other hand not many of your posts have been policy arguments, excepting the Bolt/censorship stuff, so I'm not sure whose minds you were expecting to change or on what topics.

 

[Ventron]

People write you off because people in the thread and yourself can't agree on "semantics" that should be very clear cut. Like that whole intimidation =/= censorship thing.

I wasn't really keeping track on the conversation, so I don't know the entire context, but when I last checked suppression of speech or other public communication was the definition of censorship. If you intimidate someone and their family so they don't say what they want to say, that is basically trying to suppress what they want to say to the wider community. When you seem to believe that intimidation for the purpose of silencing someone and censorship are different things, I can see how people just write you off as some Tory Talking Point Machine.

People tried to tell me that when two things serve essentially the same purpose, they can't really be argued as something different.
That's a fair enough point, even though I disagree.
But, later in the thread the argument was brought up that what Julia Gillard introduced was not a "Carbon Tax" but a "Fixed Carbon Price" and that they are distinct. That's when I burst my top over the hypocrisy.

I don't think Agyar speaks for all of us. I believe you have engaged in good conversation in this thread but on the other hand not many of your posts have been policy arguments, excepting the Bolt/censorship stuff, so I'm not sure whose minds you were expecting to change or on what topics.

I admit I sort of "gave up" on policy talk after the election, mostly because I frequently use Facebook and was tired of blocking all the "Tony Abbott is the worst PM" or "Tony Abbott should be assassinated" pages on my feed and didn't have the energy left to argue over anything unless I knew it would go somewhere.

 

[Whiteshirt]

The thing is that Gillard made it clear what her plans were - to push towards an ETS, which is anything but a tax. That's what people were arguing. In order to push an ETS through, they had to sacrifice some things to gain support and most of us think that is more than fair enough.

Was it horrible communication from Labor? Yes it was. Is it hypocritical? You can definitely say that the initial implementation of a Fixed Carbon Price is but that is the compromise that Labor made to push it through. They had clear goals that they were going to shift it towards a ETS, which is not really a tax at all.

What I want to know is if you agree or disagree that parties are allowed to compromise on policies if it means an increased chance of success. I'll make it clear - what Gillard did is nothing close to being the GST implementation during the Howard years. To most of us, we see a clear difference between the two promises and there is a context to these things besides "he lied/she lied".

 

[Dead Man]

It isn't. It really isn't. How many minds have I opened or changed in this thread?
I did try to engage in good conversation before the election. It didn't exactly work like a house on fire then, but it wasn't as bad as this thread is now post-election.
I agree it is more difficult and needs more effort, but the problem is there is nothing to gain from this. We all have better uses for our time. There is no conversation to join and indeed people don't really want one:

It's not about you convincing anyone, or anyone convincing you, it is about having a view and articulating it. Without whining, without strawmanning, and without getting pissy when people point out where you are wrong. None of which you have managed to achieve for any length of time.

People tried to tell me that when two things serve essentially the same purpose, they can't really be argued as something different.
That's a fair enough point, even though I disagree.
But, later in the thread the argument was brought up that what Julia Gillard introduced was not a "Carbon Tax" but a "Fixed Carbon Price" and that they are distinct. That's when I burst my top over the hypocrisy.



I admit I sort of "gave up" on policy talk after the election, mostly because I frequently use Facebook and was tired of blocking all the "Tony Abbott is the worst PM" or "Tony Abbott should be assassinated" pages on my feed and didn't have the energy left to argue over anything unless I knew it would go somewhere.

You seem to be unable to accept that the posters in here aree not a homogenous bunch, so just get used to people having different opinions when you talk to different people, it's not that hard. Or you can whine about hiveminds having hypocrisy, and look like an idiot.

 

[senahorse]

Wow, I just found out about TA appointing himself minister of women's affairs, I have no words.

Except, sign this change.org petition, not because I think it will directly work, but the more publicity this gets the better, this is a disgusting man...

https://www.change.org/petitions/pr...mebody-qualified-to-be-the-minister-for-women

 

[Elaugaufein]

Wow, I just found out about TA appointing himself minister of women's affairs, I have no words.

Except, sign this change.org petition, not because I think it will directly work, but the more publicity this gets the better, this is a disgusting man...

https://www.change.org/petitions/pr...mebody-qualified-to-be-the-minister-for-women

He's not going to give up that portfolio. From his perspective this was him reaching out to women , in the same way that putting Indigenous Affairs into Prime Minister and Cabinet was for reaching out to indigenous people.

Thy are even defending the FTTN policy to the death, and there's no glorious outreach there.

 

[Elaugaufein]

In not hating on the Federal Government news:

South Australian Attorney General wants tougher restrictions on video games:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-20/sa-doubts-tougher-video-games-rules-working/4971384

On one hand, an unbiased review of the rating system is probably actually a worthy thing to do every so often.

On the other hand: http://www.giantbomb.com/forums/ate...just-got-awarded-an-r18-in-australia-1424777/

 

[toddhunter]

South Australian Attorney General wants tougher restrictions on video games:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-20/sa-doubts-tougher-video-games-rules-working/4971384

Not restrictions as such, just sane ratings, which I agree with.

I'm fine with many more games getting an 18+ rating.

 

[Elaugaufein]

I would in theory agree with you. But in practice the ACB has largely been if anything overly conservative with their ratings from my observations. Things that would have gotten MA15+ before or MA15+ with editing, are now getting R18+ or R18+ and still requiring editing.

If inappropriate things are still slipping through when something like an Atelier game gets an R18+ or R18+ games need to be edited for "promoting drug use", it would seem that the problem is in the review process rather than the guidelines.

And the ACB members are not usually what you would consider demographically inclined to give things a pass:

The average age of the 8 non-Temporary Board Members is 42. There are only 2 members , under 40 and they are 27 and 33). 2 Males and 6 Females.

The major problem I suspect is that the Board doesn't actually review the games per se, rather material submitted by the publisher.

The whole thing is actually pretty bizarre in terms of providing a public service of appropriate classifications (e.g the publisher has to pay to have things classified).

 

[Dead Man]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-09-21/clive-palmer-has-won-the-seat-of-fairfax-by-36-votes/4972790

Businessman Clive Palmer has finished just 36 votes ahead in the race for the federal seat of Fairfax, a result which will trigger an automatic recount.

VOTE.