The interesting sound of silence.

[Durin's Bane]

I recall him saying stop the boats. I suppose stop talking about the boats is one answer.

1200 asylum seeker deaths in five years under labour. Yet not one iota of remorse from the Emily's Listers and Watermelons. Despicable.

 

[Skyring]

1200 asylum seeker deaths in five years under labour. Yet not one iota of remorse from the Emily's Listers and Watermelons. Despicable.

There's a classic logic problem called the Trolley Dilemma. A runaway tram is rolling toward five people tied down across the tracks - this is probably Footscray we're talking about - and you are standing by a lever controlling which set of tracks the tram runs along. You can switch the tram to run along the Carlton line, where only one person is tied down across the tracks. Quick, what is your choice?

The asylum-seeker issue is like that. Granted, it's not good to keep these people locked up (though I might point out that it's voluntary, the government will happily fly them back home if they want), but it's far worse to have hundreds of such folk drown at sea. Quick, what's your choice? It took Rudd three years to do nothing after switching the tram onto the drowning path, and three years of Gillard trying to think of a third track. Rudd, to his credit, switched the tram onto the path of least harm, when he finally nobbled Gillard, and TA happily went along with this. Seems to be working well so far. No more deaths at sea.

Not a perfect solution, but better than drowning thousands, which is what would happen if we had the Greens in control.

 

[Moody]

Well let's get Gillard and Swan back running the nation, they were superstars weren't they.

Compared to Dick Dastardly and Muttley? That would be a yes ...

 

[medhead]

Here we go again. Closing a thread denies both sides to an opinion, so try again. The vitriol seen discussing this and previous topics wasn't pleasant nor was it particularly in the spirit of AFF.

Yeah, closing a thread does that, in theory. Calling for a thread to be closed, as you did, is a different matter.

Nice soft issue? Pushka's response was in response to the OP, so again Pushka wasn't the one who originally raised the issue of the Knighthood in this thread.

Perhaps you missed the bit where that post referenced an example of criticism of TA in response to the question raised by the OP. My comment was about that example being criticism on a soft issue. I think skyring has outlined in great detail just how soft is the issue. You might have also noticed that I, like the OP, have asked about views on the hard issues.

But one thing this situation has highlighted is another chink in the armour. We hear today that TA has learnt the lesson from Phillip's knighthood. He will consult more. But didn't we hear that he'd learnt the lesson last year following the criticism about the lack of consultation around re-introducing knighthoods. Surely having the learn the lesson about consultation repeatedly is a big issue?

Well let's get Gillard and Swan back running the nation, they were superstars weren't they.

Wow. Talk about irrelevance. Talk about something that no one has suggested. Logic fallacy, much? Many people told us that Tony Abbott is the saviour. It seems appropriate to have them review the situation 18 months down the track. How do they rate the performance of their great solution? That sure as hell ain't a suggestion to go backwards. Still dear leader does seem keen to send us back to the 1950s.

 

[Skyring]

Compared to Dick Dastardly and Muttley?

At this point, we may assume a team song is being sung and civil discourse has ceased. Thank you.

 

[BAM1748]

Well let's get Gillard and Swan back running the nation, they were superstars weren't they.

No one has suggested this except yourself.

matt

 

[medhead]

At this point, we may assume a team song is being sung and civil discourse has ceased. Thank you.

False assumption. I'm yet to see this government move out of opposition mode. Feel free to present examples of superior performance by team Australia. In fact, pretending that Abbott is a better PM in governance terms sounds like a team song to me.

 

[BAM1748]

We're open for business....not.

Since the change of Govt in September 13 I can confirm there are 22 less intermodal trains carrying freight between Sydney and Melbourne each week.

Business is slowing as I see it in parked up rail equipment in all states mostly since October 2014.

Matt

 

[medhead]

1200 asylum seeker deaths in five years under labour. Yet not one iota of remorse from the Emily's Listers and Watermelons. Despicable.

I think you've missed the point. This government provides no information about the boats. The tell us the boats have stopped arriving. I do hope you haven't fallen for those weasel words. That certainly doesn't mean the boats aren't leaving, just that they don't get here. Then we hear the government talk about interception. If the boats have stopped what is being intercepted.

Once intercepted the boat that didn't arrive is towed back and those people are set adrift on the ocean. That seems like a very dangerous action to me. Do you think that no one has died because the government doesn't report the numbers?

 

[Moody]

At this point, we may assume a team song is being sung and civil discourse has ceased. Thank you.

Que? I was simply responding to a sarcastic comment with a bit of humour. The only sign that civil discourse has ceased can be seen in a mirror, Grinsky.

 

[Skyring]

We're open for business....not.

Since the change of Govt in September 13 I can confirm there are 22 less intermodal trains carrying freight between Sydney and Melbourne each week.

I don't think this is any one party policy. Rail services have been declining for decades, regardless of who's in power, and saying it's a Federal problem is wide of the mark.

Why is rail being given the back pedal? It should be the most efficient form of transport we have, short of sea transport.

 

[SFSC]

Recent experience in Newcastle would suggest that one lot of pollies are less enamoured with railways than the others.

 

[Skyring]

Recent experience in Newcastle would suggest that one lot of pollies are less enamoured with railways than the others.

I don't live in Newcastle. What's the story?

 

[mannej]

Clutching at straws again are we? The suggestion of closing the thread was due to the fact that the OP was a random, out of the blue personal attack on two members. Not to silence any left or right wing group of members.

Is that not fair enough reason to shut the thread down early? As history has shown on here, a number of members can not play nicely discussing politics. I hope I am wrong, but I don't see this thread being any different.

 

[SFSC]

I don't live in Newcastle. What's the story?

Train services into Newcastle ceased on 25/12/2014. Maybe forever. There is supposed to be a light rail system installed later which will only use part of the existing easement and will then co-exist with motor traffic on the streets.

The story is a long one and has taken place over about the last 20 years. I'll try and find a reference that will provide a timeline but recent media stories such as Crossings open over disused rail lines | Newcastle Herald and associated comments show the community is somewhat divided on the issue.

My own personal opinion is that it makes my travel into Newcastle more difficult because of the need to change to bus (and possibly tram later, if the light rail is ever built). On the other hand, at least two motor vehicle crossings at grade have been eliminated and a number of new pedestrian walkways across the old railway line will be welcomed by those who find stairs difficult.

 

[admin]

In the interest of fairness and balance, we took the decision this morning to keep this thread open. I'm hoping that comments posted on this thread will not make me regret this decision.

Politics is always emotive, and I ask that you take special care in keeping your posts civil.

If the moderator team feel that things are getting out of hand, this thread will be closed (and action taken against offending individuals, if required).

 

[medhead]

Clutching at straws again are we? The suggestion of closing the thread was due to the fact that the OP was a random, out of the blue personal attack on two members. Not to silence any left or right wing group of members.

Is that not fair enough reason to shut the thread down early? As history has shown on here, a number of members can not play nicely discussing politics. I hope I am wrong, but I don't see this thread being any different.

And making veiled accusations about being against the spirit of AFF and what you're dancing around in this post is not an attack on members? Ok then. Implied doesn't make it right.

I'd also suggest that seeing a personal attack in the OP explains at lot about past threads. Question people to reconcile their vocal past positions is an attack? Another ok then.

 

[mannej]

And making veiled accusations about being against the spirit of AFF and what you're dancing around in this post is not an attack on members? Ok then. Implied doesn't make it right.

I'd also suggest that seeing a personal attack in the OP explains at lot about past threads. Question people to reconcile their vocal past positions is an attack? Another ok then.

If you don't see that as an attack that is your prerogative, however singling out two members like this IMHO constitutes a personal attack (and I know for a fact that I am not the only who has this point of view).

An implied attack on AFF members? Not at all, just an observation on the tone of the previous AFF threads on politics. Most definitely not an attack in any form whatsoever. To suggest that previous threads did not contain a high degree of vitriol would be dancing around the truth.

 

[dragonman]

Firstly I intended no attack at all as Skyring appears to understand. Anyone who wants to bring a defamation action is welcome.

It just seemed to me that the misdeeds of this government had gone largely ignored. Whilst those of the previous government were anything but.

As as for the idea of closing the discussion, I am moved to ponder whether that was suggested by the same people last time?

in any respect my feeling is some balance has been restored and kudos to the moderator for leaving it open.

 

[medhead]

If you don't see that as an attack that is your prerogative, however singling out two members like this IMHO constitutes a personal attack (and I know for a fact that I am not the only who has this point of view).

An implied attack on AFF members? Not at all, just an observation on the tone of the previous AFF threads on politics. Most definitely not an attack in any form whatsoever. To suggest that previous threads did not contain a high degree of vitriol would be dancing around the truth.

There is a clear implication to your comment about past threads that match accusations that have previously been made. There is a word for when people are happy to dish things out but don't like it when the shoe is on the other foot.

If people think mentioning their previous vocal pronouncements is a personal attack perhaps they shouldn't have been so vocal in the past. Unless you're trying to say the previous government wasn't lambasted at ever chance by some people. I think it is a fair question to ask why that previous concern for good governance is not being applied to the multitude of failures by the current government.