All things Politics

[DinoSoar]

It is recognised that this is a fraught topic for any number of you posting here. Some of you will have family in Israel or Palestine. Some of you will have connections to either side of the conflict. What you need to understand is that this site has rules governing posting standards and the appropriate way to talk to other posters, and you will abide by them.

How this interacts with this thread is that the following will result in your post being deleted, with a recurrence of the same behaviour resulting in (depending on severity) a threadban for a week and a day off:

• direct labelling of someone as anti-semitic or a terrorist sympathiser for posting that is merely critical of Israel's response over time. Israel has the right to defend themselves from violence, but that does not mean that Israel has carte blanche to attack disproportionately towards people under their care.
• deliberate goading or flippant responses, designed to get people reacting to your posting emotionally.
• abuse.
• attempts to turn this into a Left vs Right shitfight.
• Use the word 'Nazi' in here, you had better be able to justify it in the post you're making and the comparison had better be apt. Godwin's law is in full effect for the purposes of this thread; if you refer to Nazis, you've lost whatever argument you're involved in.
• Any defense of Hamas' actions on the basis of justification. There's no justification for genocide, regardless of whether or not they have the power to do so.

Please recognise that this is a difficult time for all involved, and some level of sensitivity is absolutely required to permit discussion to flow. From time to time, mods will reach out to specific posters and do some welfare checks; we may even give posters who get a bit too involved some days off to give people some time to cool down. This is not a reflection on you as a poster, merely that this is an intense subject.

I get that this is a fairly intense topic about which opinion can diverge rather significantly. If you feel you cannot be respectful in your disagreement with another poster, it is frequently better to refuse to engage than it is to take up the call.

From this point, any poster who finds themselves directly insulting another poster will find themselves receiving a threadban and an infraction, with each subsequent reoccurance resulting in steadily more points added to your account.

It has also become apparent that this needs to be said: just because someone moderates this forum that does not hold them to a different standard of posting than anyone else. All of us were posters first, and we are allowed to hold opinions on this and share them on this forum.

Treat each other with the respect each of you deserve.

Maggie5 Gone Critical Anzacday Jen2310

 

[frizzle]

Here's a guy who wouldn't mind being President.....he's already running foreign policy..

He very well might be. Because it isn't Joe that's for sure.

 

[sr36]

I find it fascinating that only after watching the debate do people here think Biden isn't capable of standing as President.
Nobody is asking who in fact is making the decisions now & has been for a long time. Joe hasn't been capable of running the country for years. Everybody that looked openly & honestly knew it. So that begs the question. What unelected person or people are running the country in his stead then?

Vivek told us 7 months ago that this was going to happen. Some people are awake & some are snoring rather loudly.
Don't be the 2nd group.

THe point regarding the debate isn't whether or not Biden can do the job. Debates have absolutely nothing to do with considered decision making. The point is that it seriously damages his likelihood of being elected.

 

[frizzle]

THe point regarding the debate isn't whether or not Biden can do the job. Debates have absolutely nothing to do with considered decision making. The point is that it seriously damages his likelihood of being elected.

If you think that is the main point & most important point then there isn't much hope for you. You refuse to open your eyes & look for yourself.
There are decisions being made on Ukraine/Russia & Israel/Palestine as well as border security & important economical decisions being made by people who were not elected the so called leader of the free world. You obviously think this is fine & isn't as important as getting elected again. WOW.

 

[jathanas]

*** You refuse to open your eyes & look for yourself.

That's a strong statement. What is it that gives you this conviction? What has opened your eyes in a way that ours haven't?

There are decisions being made on Ukraine/Russia & Israel/Palestine as well as border security & important economical decisions being made by people who were not elected the so called leader of the free world. ***

Can you please link to your sources?

 

[sr36]

If you think that is the main point & most important point then there isn't much hope for you. You refuse to open your eyes & look for yourself.
There are decisions being made on Ukraine/Russia & Israel/Palestine as well as border security & important economical decisions being made by people who were not elected the so called leader of the free world. You obviously think this is fine & isn't as important as getting elected again. WOW.

Of course there are. Do you think that either candidate is an expert in these areas? As much as you may want to believe in the notion of the great figure who does it all, pollies set priorities and values and then select and approve from the strategies presented to them that are devised by non-elected experts.

 

[jathanas]

Of course there are. Do you think that either candidate is an expert in these areas? As much as you may want to believe in the notion of the great figure who does it all, pollies set priorities and values and then select and approve from the strategies presented to them that are devised by experts.

Keep quiet "sheeple person", we have an opportunity to learn here.

 

[IlovethePies]

Wikileaks asked to edit Afghan names from US files

Human rights groups urge Wikileaks to remove the names of Afghan civilians from leaked US military reports.

www.bbc.com

WikiLeaks Reportedly Outs 100s of Afghan Informants

The Times: Hundreds of Civilians Who Worked with U.S. Forces Named in Leaked Docs, Raising Fear of Reprisals

www.cbsnews.com

Report: Afghan leaks dangerously expose informants' identities

The leaking of U.S. intelligence documents have put hundreds of Afghans at risk because the files identify informants working with NATO forces, The Times of London reported.

www.nbcnews.com

What is it that you don;t get? I have already explained how these articles are lies.
It was Cohen and other msm journalists who leaked a link to a website where Assange had stored original, unredacted cables containing the names of informants.
Once this was leaked, and the names of the informants made public (NOT by Assange, but by Cohen etc), then Wikileaks allowed the original documents to be made publicly available, because they already were.
All the articles you quote above claim that it was Wikileaks that led to the initial exposure, which is a lie.
Don;t you think the prosecution during Assange's protracted court case over the last 5 years would have brought this issue up if there were any legal merit to it? They were always grasping for non-existent straws throughout the case, so this would have been a boon to them, if in fact it were true.

 

[gouki88]

That's a strong statement. What is it that gives you this conviction? What has opened your eyes in a way that ours haven't?

Lunacy

 

[sr36]

What is it that you don;t get? I have already explained how these articles are lies.
It was Cohen and other msm journalists who leaked a link to a website where Assange had stored original, unredacted cables containing the names of informants.
Once this was leaked, and the names of the informants made public (NOT by Assange, but by Cohen etc), then Wikileaks allowed the original documents to be made publicly available, because they already were.
All the articles you quote above claim that it was Wikileaks that led to the initial exposure, which is a lie.
Don;t you think the prosecution during Assange's protracted court case over the last 5 years would have brought this issue up if there were any legal merit to it? They were always grasping for non-existent straws throughout the case, so this would have been a boon to them, if in fact it were true.

Yep, Amnesty International have long had a vendetta against Assange. That's why they peddled the lies:

USA must drop charges against Julian Assange

uthorities in the USA must drop the espionage and all other charges against Julian Assange that relate to his publishing activities as part of his work with Wikileaks.

www.amnesty.org

It's not mentioned in the court cases as it has nothing to do with the court case. It only relates to how ethical a publisher he was.

And no wikileaks didn't put up the unredacted documents. They just did a really shit job of redacting them, because they didn't want to redact them in the first place, there were heaps of documents and they didn't want to spend the time to publish ethically. They actually threatened Amnesty with finding some dirt on them if they didn't do the redacting for them.

ANd no I'm not going to go on a lengthy rant about you being a liar, as I just think you're wrong and probably believe your shite.

 

[Mauvais Cheval]

View attachment cKPK8psJfzfGpQ5F.mp4

 

[IlovethePies]

Yep, Amnesty International have long had a vendetta against Assange. That's why they peddled the lies:

USA must drop charges against Julian Assange

uthorities in the USA must drop the espionage and all other charges against Julian Assange that relate to his publishing activities as part of his work with Wikileaks.

www.amnesty.org

It's not mentioned in the court cases as it has nothing to do with the court case. It only relates to how ethical a publisher he was.

And no wikileaks didn't put up the unredacted documents. They just did a really shit job of redacting them, because they didn't want to redact them in the first place, there were heaps of documents and they didn't want to spend the time to publish ethically. They actually threatened Amnesty with finding some dirt on them if they didn't do the redacting for them.

ANd no I'm not going to go on a lengthy rant about you being a liar, as I just think you're wrong and probably believe your shite.

OK, so according to you it is unethical to publish classified documents, even if they expose government war crimes. Never mind that the First Amendment of the US consitution specifically protects such actions in support of the right to freedom of speech.
By the way, here are the concluding words of the US judge (Ramona Sanglona) in Saipan after he had sentenced Assange to time served:
"There's another significant fact - the government has indicated there is no personal victim here. That tell me the dissemination of this information did not result in any known physical injury".

 

[frizzle]

Malcolm tweets about net zero support over & over. Lets not pretend he doesn't have a dog in this fight. Nuclear would cost him millions.

https://www.turnbullrenewables.com.au/

 

[frizzle]

OK, so according to you it is unethical to publish classified documents, even if they expose government war crimes. Never mind that the First Amendment of the US consitution specifically protects such actions in support of the right to freedom of speech.
By the way, here are the concluding words of the US judge (Ramona Sanglona) in Saipan after he had sentenced Assange to time served:
"There's another significant fact - the government has indicated there is no personal victim here. That tell me the dissemination of this information did not result in any known physical injury".

Freedom of speech huh?

 

[sr36]

OK, so according to you it is unethical to publish classified documents, even if they expose government war crimes. Never mind that the First Amendment of the US consitution specifically protects such actions in support of the right to freedom of speech.
By the way, here are the concluding words of the US judge (Ramona Sanglona) in Saipan after he had sentenced Assange to time served:
"There's another significant fact - the government has indicated there is no personal victim here. That tell me the dissemination of this information did not result in any known physical injury".

No idea how you came to that conclusion.

 

[IlovethePies]

No idea how you came to that conclusion.

You said he was an "unethical publisher". ....

 

[sr36]

You said he was an "unethical publisher". ....

Yes and I think that every deal that Christopher Skase did was unethical - including when he was buying milk ...

 

[frizzle]

It was a full moon in Adelaide a week ago. Where are you posting from?

Did you watch them all? or is your mind so closed off that you can't?

 

[IlovethePies]

Yes and I think that every deal that Christopher Skase did was unethical - including when he was buying milk ...

Think this reply is proof enough that you have lost track of whatever it was you are arguing.perhsps you need the same performance enhancing drugs as Biden does

 

[sr36]

Did you watch them all? or is your mind so closed off that you can't?

I readthe blurbs
I read this in the first one:
All the doctors said ... 'We've never seen a virus that attacks the kidneys.

And then this in one near the end:
Australia is taking in more than 10,000 immigrants every week.

The truth might be out there, but it's not in the stuff you're posting.

 

[sr36]

Think this reply is proof enough that you have lost track of whatever it was you are arguing.perhsps you need the same performance enhancing drugs as Biden does

Warning: the following might cause you incredible confusion:


I like the song Billie Jean, but am not a big fan of paedophilia.

 

[frizzle]

I read this in the first one:
All the doctors said. You heard it again and again. 'We've never seen a virus that attacks the kidneys.

And then this in one near the end:
Australia is taking in more than 10,000 immigrants every week.

The truth might be out there, but it's not in the stuff you're posting.

You don't believe we are taking in 10,000 immigrants per week in a housing shortage crisis?
You're a smart guy I can tell from your footy posting. There will come a day when you start to question things you have believed your whole life. It took me until I was 56 years old to question things even though I knew something wasn't quite right with the world. All the best to you.

 

[WalterBlaknWhte]

I like the song Billie Jean, but am not a big fan of paedophilia.

You ever said this in a job interview Savvy?

 

[Mauvais Cheval]

where the whackjobs end up, or why I have zero tolerance for the dipshits in this thread, a case study

The night the cookers were handed over to neo-Nazis at the Polish Club

A former 'Neighbours' star, a former pro wrestler and a former gym owner walk into a club in Melbourne... it's not a joke; it's a conspiracist love-in.

independentaustralia.net

 

[sr36]

You ever said this in a job interview Savvy?

I'm a teacher. You've got to have a stock response when the principal asks if you're a paedophile.

 

[sr36]

You don't believe we are taking in 10,000 immigrants per week in a housing shortage crisis?
You're a smart guy I can tell from your footy posting. There will come a day when you start to question things you have believed your whole life. It took me until I was 56 years old to question things even though I knew something wasn't quite right with the world. All the best to you.

Net immigration was at that level in 2022/23 due to the borders having been closed for a couple of years.

It's half that level now, however, probably should be higher as the biggest issue around building enough houses and providing enough services for an aging population is skilled workers - who are currently 70% of that immigration intake that is supposedly a massive drain.