Live Exports: The next great issue to Disappear under Abbott’s Government

reb

The point I’m making Hall, which you managed to miss entirely, is that this so-called Govt has a track record in its relatively short history in just making things “disappear”.

Nothing has been made to “disappear” under this government, you are just having withdrawal symptoms because unlike the previous Labor governments the Abbott administration does not feel the need to be in the media every minute of everyday

Don’t like the pesky “scientific facts” of climate change? Fine, just scrap the Climate Change Commission…

Oh come off it Reb, if ever there was a useless quango it was the Climate Change Commission. and the fact that they have been able to get the climate change faithful to fund their activities proves that government money was unnecessary. tell me one thing that the CCC have offered that has was worth the money. You know some unique insights that we could not do without. The truth is that all they have ever done is recycle the same propaganda as every other alarmist organisation.

Troubled by those persistent asylum seekers who keep coming here by boat? No problem, just stop reporting it.

Once a week reporting seems enough to me, especially as the numbers are now well down on what they were under Labor.

And now we have the govt scrapping role of the person responsible for overseeing animal welfare of Live Exports…

Be real the position was created under Gillard and no one has actually ever taken up the job so what have we lost here? Nothing.

I mean, if you don’t anyone to report it, then I guess it doesn’t really exist, right?

When it comes to animal cruelty in jurisdiction that we have no control over what would you have us do? call in an air-strike to take out sloppy butchers? The fact of the mater is that we just can not force other countries to kill the animals they want to eat entirely the way that we would like the only instrument that the Australian government has is to ban the trade and that worked real well for Gillard didn’t it?

I can not find the footage in question but found this and ask you if this was the style of slaughter that you find so cruel:

If it is you will note that from cut till death takes less than a minute and the sheep does not seem to suffer that much.

Paul
what a hypocritical response from you!

Ricky Pann

Fuck off hall crawl back under your rock…you redneck, welfare bludging, hypocritical, pantry waist smeg

Why is it that you go around the internet trying to act as a roving bully boy? Attempting to usurp the role of the blog owners to decide who can comment on the threads they post?

Paul

Hall, maybe you should listen to your kids some more, they seem to know more of what is going on in the world then what you do.

I constantly listen to my kids Paul, but that does not oblige me to abandon reason and just accept the things that they say in error. As they come to me for advice about the big questions about life I think that I still have an edge in the knowledge department. That said they both leave you for dead in terms of their intellect , humanity and emotional maturity.

Cheers Cabbages

Still can`t post at your site Iain.
Since wordpress upgraded l seem to be unable to post on blogs with either new themes or new widgets, not sure which. (coz my old computer) l`ve also lost the `Like` button/widget, anybody else missing the wordpress `Like` button too, or just me.?

Sorry to hear that, My theme and widgets have been unchanged for a long time. are you logged into WP when you have tried to comment? I really think that you should not be having any trouble but if it persists try contacting WP support which is usually pretty good.

reb

See how fkn ridiculously warped your so-called “opinion” is Hall?

Are you denying that what you want from changing the definition of marriage is something other than social affirmation of your sexuality?

paul

So Hall, did u just get married to shag the misses and have kids, if not what was the real reason????

It cannot be because of love, as that would throw your argument out the window.

Have you ever had an enduring relationship Paul? I doubt it because if you had you would realise that the way that any couple make their partnership has very little to do with what it is called.

Hall, it does not matter what side of politics I follow, or anyone follows, left, right conservative, it is about equality, there are even people in the coalition who believe in marriage equality, as against it. Just as there are people in the Labor party who are against it, and for marriage equality.

Sure I understand that this is an issue that crosses political boundaries, what of it? When it comes to equality the most important aspect of it when it comes to anyone’s sexuality is that we are all free to partner with the person of our choice. The irony that I pointed out in my post seems to have escaped both you and reb, namely I have long advocated a form of civil union to cover homosexual couples and in essence that is precisely what has been created by that glorified town council in Canberra. Of course there are a couple of reasons that I still have a problem with it, firstly there is the semantics of the bill’s title but more importantly I agree with those who say that such things should be the remit of the commonwealth rather than the states or territories. That said I have lost count of the times that advocates have insisted that “Civil union” was not enough. in fact I take heart from the revelation that for those who so vociferously endorse the ACT act that civil unions clearly are adequate.

Paul
Re your comment of November 2, 2013 4:28 pm

Before you dis my family further just consider why you don’t have a wife and children of your own

Cheers Cabbages

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘Unlike you I am not at all inclined towards totalitarian thinking’ ‘ ‘ ‘

.
l would suggest you actually check the definition of `totalitarian`
The anti-gay-sorry-euthanasia-abortion teabags are much closer to the totalitarian/fascism end of the scale, than the teabags opponents, which aren`t necessarily teh-Left either.

I have a very good grasp of the definition of totalitarianism which is why i think that Paul is an example of the breed. That said I am not anti-Gay even though I do not endorse changes to the marriage act, I do think that apologies can be over valued, any liberalisation of euthanasia worries me but I would also not berate anyone for deciding when they want to go if they have a terminal condition, Abortion is an issue of competing imperatives that change in their weighting the longer that gestation progresses. That said totalitarianism is about the wish to impose an orthodoxy upon a society and there have been examples of that form both the right and the left both are equally abhorrent to me.
.

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘can impose my own beliefs upon my children,’ ‘ ‘ ‘
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘making the arguments to them that explain why I think’ ‘ ‘ ‘
.
actually l disagree,
dog-bothering has survived for centuries, by father to son indoctrination of fables

You are barking up the wrong tree on that one mate, I am a life long atheist and we have a 100% secular household. That said I am sure that you would not berate me for trying to imbue my children with notions of kindness, honesty and compassion would you? The only fable that has ever had currency in our house was the existence of Santa and the tooth fairy and both only lasted because the kids loved them even when they had so clearly worked out that the presents and money came from their mother and I .

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘the role of a parent, to teach our offspring what we ourselves have learnt’ ‘ ‘ ‘
.
unfortunately, most people pass on as much `bad` information as `good`

Maybe so Cabbages but its one of the rights of parenting that we get to pass on not only our DNA but also the other aspects of our life experience. The children we make are, after all, our one real chance at a continued existence (of a sort) after we die..

Cheers Cabbages

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘you would realise that the way that any couple make their partnership has very little to do with what it is called.’ ‘ ‘ ‘ ‘
.
by that metric, teabags should not oppose gay-marriage then,

No I was talking about the partnerships, or pair bonds for which no social imprimatur is necessary..

and could probably be applied to `abortion` and `voluntary-euthanasia` too

How so?

.

.
‘ ‘ ‘ ‘Are you denying that what you want from changing the definition of marriage is something other than social affirmation of your sexuality?’ ‘ ‘ ‘

‘ ‘ ‘Yes.’ ‘ ‘ _ (reb)
CAN YOU SAY _ EQUALITY

Can you define EQUALITY, in detail?

TB

There are people in love who want to get married – in church – and people like you deny them that right as human beings not to be married in a church … its about human respect for everyone’s rights … not just your religious beliefs … power … and control.

There is not one Gay marriage jurisdiction that I know of that even attempts to force churches to perform same sex weddings its always a civil ceremony that is advocated for and in fact most jurisdictions give specific exemptions from litigation under “anti discrimination” statutes to prevent those with a religious objection being required to offer either their time or churches for Gay weddings.
That said you would be mistaken to think that I have any desire to impose my position upon others I do however feel no guilt about trying to persuade other that mine ids the correct position. Isn’t that the essence of democracy?

Cheers Cabbages

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘I do think that apologies can be over valued,’ ‘ ‘ ‘
‘
Yes, and teabag lunacy prevents you seeing the `other` values.

Hmm, I suspect that you think that “seeing” other values means agreeing with them but as it happens I have no problem at all with understanding that we all perceive things differently and that in many instances there is not a dichotomy between corroect and incorrect
.

As a more `financial-conservative` myself,
(Let`s ignore the correct verses incorrect aspect)
my employee`s, whom l pay 190k_pa plus perks `starting` salary,
now no longer waste their working hours having to come up with fables `justifying` why NOT-to-say-sorry, as it is now done and dusted, and they no longer get beaten about the head with the `sorry`baton by the embedded-media.

what does this mean?
.

ln most `topics` teabag lunacy always fails to see `other` conservative views too, and your reply`s that bleat `teh-Left` are actually so very incorrect many a time.

It seems to me that if I am sinning by using a “leftist” umbrella to describe a part of teh polity you commit the same sin by using “tea-bag” in the same way
paul

You seem to have a rather sadly polarised view about the subject that allows for no divergence from the leftist orthodoxy on the subject.

Hall, here you have said it a leftist orthodoxy, but then you say this.

Sure I understand that this is an issue that crosses political boundaries, what of it?

So what is it Hall, a lefty problem or does it cover all political spectrum. In your case you always blame the left.

In the first instance I was talking about what YOU personally believe and in the second I was accepting that across the members of parliament there is a range of views. There is no contradiction in my position here, The problem is that you are incapable of clearly comprehending any sort of nuance and you are blinded by your desperate need to win even when you are totally out of your intellectual depth.

Hall, I’ll dis on your family when ever I want to,

Sure and you will diminish yourself every time that you do so

and hall, you have stated many times that the major reason for marriage is just to propagate the species, and I stand by my comments about your life, why did you get married, was it to just propagate the species, as you say.

Do you even understand the difference between a generality and the specific? Clearly you don’t.

Cheers Cabbages

‘ ‘ ‘ ‘I am a life long atheist’ ‘ ‘ ‘
‘
Maybe so. But you are not a `critical-thinker/comprehensive-conservative` either.

is there an exam that one has to pass to be a conservative? My personal philosophy is enunciated in the pages of my blog so if you wish to understand it better then feel free to read it.

Your talk-points are straight from the `Church-of-teabag` and answers are recitals of the`teabag-bible-handbook`.

Don’t confuse my love of rhetoric using religious iconography with me having any sort of belief in the supernatural or the existence of any sort of deity.

You always fail to justify the waste of my over-paid employee`s time (as_above) which can also be applied to gay-marriage, abortion, voluntary-euthanasia and probably most other topics under the `Personal-Liberty`s banner.

Oh I get it the “employees” you talk about are our MPs 🙄
.

Teabags are NOT making the case on the financial side, why so much money should go up in smoke to oppose these topics.

that sounds to me like you oppose any sort of democracy that represents the full spectrum of public opinion. In nay event at the level of the public debate its the unpaid members of the politically active class who make the arguments for and against and long may it be so. Democracy requires robust debate whic seesm to be an anathema to you.

Remember, these things are voluntary/private, exactly the same as driving a car. lf you choose to drive a car, then you go get a licence. Nobody is forced by Govt to be a motorist. lf gays want to get married, Let`em, nobody will be forcing you to be `gay-married` or force you to attend `gay-weddings`.

if these issues are just voluntary/private as you contend then why do they need the imprimatur of legislation? could it be that all of these issues have aspects that extend beyond the personal? that said I find it amusing that you should invoke the analogy with driving a car but lets run with that for a moment or two shall we? When we drive a car its not something that involves only us as the drive of the machine there are potential repercussions for other road users. Likewise if we change the definition of marriage what will the consequences be?
.

The same `choice` argument is valid for voluntary-euthanasia and abortion. lt is now time for teabags to justify the waste of taxpayers money via politicians time, in opposing personal Liberty`s. Crunch-time, put-up or

Euthanasia is quite rightly a vexed issue and clearly not as simple as you contend. Personally I think that making it difficult provides a protection against vulnerable people being coerced into suicide. As I suggested earlier abortion is not the simple issue that the feministas would have use believe. It all turns upon when we accept the humanity of the unborn. Personally I take the view that as the gestation progresses the greater the justification for a termination has to be because the humanity of the unborn becomes ever more undeniable.
.

egg

‘…why did you get married, was it to just propagate the species, as you say.’

I’ll jump in here, men don’t marry to propagate the species, they reluctantly tie the knot for regular sex to alleviate the constant hunger.

Well I would say that the “hunger” exists not just because of a desire for the physical pleasure of sex but because we all have the biological imperative to propagate the species.

The reason women marry is so they are not seen by other women as lose. This is a complex issue, beyond male understanding, but at this early stage I suggest women are not really all that interested in male hunger and marry for material security.

You are single aren’t you?

This is where the battle of the sexes comes from. Dog made a huge blunder and that’s why we don’t have heaven on earth.

Sou sound like a utopian socialist

Egg

‘we all have the biological imperative to propagate the species.’

That’s the big picture item, but on the ground in the heat of battle, all men want to do is take away the pain.

That sounds like the anguished wail of a man who has lost the race to make a successful pair bond, man to man I suggest that you don’t give up yet.

I prefer to sleep alone in the attic, on a sponge mattress, with a small window opening onto a grand vista, but I’m not a monk.

You can’t just be a spectator on life mate,nor can you ignore the biological purpose of sex and that the pleasure of a good shag is not an end in itself.

‘You sound like a utopian socialist’

I cannot deny it.

Have you read and understood Animal farm?

Reb
I love arguing about almost any topic so I welcome being challenged.
Cabbages
it was determined well before Howard that the power over marriages rests with the commonwealth other than the states .

http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.caslon.com.au%2Fregistersnote1.htm&ei=nfF1UqrzM4elkAXT8YDQDw&usg=AFQjCNHsfHbMoXGipuA7nkbw0FW_KxjBMg&bvm=bv.55819444,d.dGI

What is your point Cabbages? I just googled what you asked me and gave you the top result. but now that I think about it I think that state governments keep such records and issue things like wedding, birth or death certificates even though they do so under federal law.

TB
from my link above:

The federal Marriage Act 1961 and section 109 of the Constitution provides the Commonwealth with exclusive jurisdiction over the formation of marriages in Australia. The states/territories however maintain discrete marriage registers.

Marriage registers in Australia typically feature –

name of each person
gender
age
previous marital status
date and place of marriage
identity of marriage registrant

Religious and civil ceremonies are recognised, subject to provision of a a registration certificate with the above information and copliance with requirements such as identification of those being married (eg showing the proposed celebrant documentary proof that they are 18 years old or older) and proof that an individual is free to remarry if that person has been married before.

Some jurisdictions have recognised relationships outside marriage.

The Tasmanian Relationships Act 2003 for example provides for recognition and registration of significant relationships (eg two adults who “are not related by family”) and caring (“between two adults, whether or not related by family, one of whom provides the other with domestic support and personal care”).

The ACT Civil Unions Act 2006 sought to create a statutory scheme for the recognition of gay and other relationships (“A civil union is different to a marriage but is to be treated for all purposes under territory law in the same way as a marriage”). It was overturned by the federal government under s35 of the Australian Capital Territory (Self-Government) Act, reflecting the Territories power in the Constitution.

well you can’t argue with the history Cabbages because the have done precisely that 😉

We can always tell when You are losing the argument Paul, its when you start trying to post links to something from my back catalogue the Crikey thread must be right at the top of your “favourites” in your bookmarks list because that is twice you have cited it in the last week by my reckoning.

Maate…. Lift yer game!

You have to do better than call me names and point out that, Quel surprise! my argument now is consistent with one that I made before to win the argument. Frankly having a consistent argument on an issue(for either side is a virtue) in my book.
Now care to address my response of November 3, 2013 3:35 pm ?

You know its the one above where I demolish your child like claim that what I said elsewhere (learn to properly attribute you citations! ) proves “bigotry and racism”.

I don’t know why you have such a man crush on me, I don’t swing that way, and if that is you in your new avatar you are a most unattractive man both physically and intellectually, you are so terribly insecure, lacking in any sort of ability in debate where you always resort to personal abuse to cover you general ignorance.
Finally remember that it was not I that derailed the thread here it was Cabbages and you,