Chat Forum
It is currently Sun Oct 20, 2019 9:59 am

All times are UTC [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23900 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 598  Next

Whos Going to Lead the Labor Rabble
Albo 44%  44%  [ 4 ]
Plibbers 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Bowen 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Chalmers 33%  33%  [ 3 ]
Uncle Tony 11%  11%  [ 1 ]
Clive Palmer 11%  11%  [ 1 ]
George Smith 0%  0%  [ 0 ]
Total votes : 9
Author Message
PostPosted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 12:51 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9653
Location: Tahstown
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
grievous wrote:
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
A fun weekend in the heart of Hockeyville, had to dodge squads of Blueshirts who were patrolling the local cafe strip yesterday and this morning had the local shopkeep put a "Real Solutions" pamphlet on top of my sunday paper, I put it back on the pile but he tried to do it again with my change...


You buy sunday papers? :x


seriously, what the fudge is wrong with you?

nothing I was taking the piss :| , sunday papers, no content etc, you seem to have a hangover from the game thread Snaps, f**king chill out


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 457
Labor might have the "faceless" men but the Liberals have the "invisible" men (and women).

Apparently for the past two weeks, the Liberals candidates in Western Sydney have refused to engage in debates or be interviewed by the media. Not sure if this extends to News Ltd as they would be painted in the best light regardless.

Where in the world is Jaymes Diaz? Claims to be a lawyer but doesn't have a current practising certificate.

I can't believe this numb nut is going to be a parliamentarian. I guess the people of Greenway will get what they deserve.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:24 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3080
Location: Queensland!
Vuaka wrote:
Labor might have the "faceless" men but the Liberals have the "invisible" men (and women).

Apparently for the past two weeks, the Liberals candidates in Western Sydney have refused to engage in debates or be interviewed by the media. Not sure if this extends to News Ltd as they would be painted in the best light regardless.

Where in the world is Jaymes Diaz? Claims to be a lawyer but doesn't have a current practising certificate.

I can't believe this numb nut is going to be a parliamentarian. I guess the people of Greenway will get what they deserve.


He probably doesn't know he needs a certificate, assume from the Bar Association? - hell he doesn't know his own party's policies or apparently how to tie his shoes on his own. Finally a candidate that makes Clive look level headed, thank you the Libs :lol:

With a week to go I'm predicting a 2.4 swing to the LNP with a few seats swinging randomly on local issues.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 10:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3082
Anyone who claims to be an 'issues' voter will be voting Labor. The key issues for the future are the NBN and the parental leave scheme. The liberal policies on both are shockers and for that alone they should be slaughtered. Unfortunately a combination of liberal lemmings, die hard racists (tony cynically attacking one nation for their constituents), religious nut jobs and the blatantly self interested in combination with brain dead agrarian socialists is enough to gain power.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:48 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5769
Brumbie_Steve wrote:
Anyone who claims to be an 'issues' voter will be voting Labor. The key issues for the future are the NBN and the parental leave scheme. The liberal policies on both are shockers and for that alone they should be slaughtered. Unfortunately a combination of liberal lemmings, die hard racists (tony cynically attacking one nation for their constituents), religious nut jobs and the blatantly self interested in combination with brain dead agrarian socialists is enough to gain power.


Well, I have said it before, but why not.

Elections are lost by the incumbents, not won by the opposition.

Labor lost this election a couple of years ago through internal infighting, their state counterparts corruption and simple ineptitude (all self inflicted wounds), since then, the only issue has been the margin of victory.

But if it makes you feel better blame the media, or the weather or the colour of Abbott's tie or cynical policy.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Sun Sep 01, 2013 11:52 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3082
_fatprop wrote:
Brumbie_Steve wrote:
Anyone who claims to be an 'issues' voter will be voting Labor. The key issues for the future are the NBN and the parental leave scheme. The liberal policies on both are shockers and for that alone they should be slaughtered. Unfortunately a combination of liberal lemmings, die hard racists (tony cynically attacking one nation for their constituents), religious nut jobs and the blatantly self interested in combination with brain dead agrarian socialists is enough to gain power.


Well, I have said it before, but why not.

Elections are lost by the incumbents, not won by the opposition.

Labor lost this election a couple of years ago through internal infighting, their state counterparts corruption and simple ineptitude (all self inflicted wounds), since then, the only issue has been the margin of victory.

But if it makes you feel better blame the media, or the weather or the colour of Abbott's tie or cynical policy.


So I'll put you down as a die hard racist?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:10 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5769
Brumbie_Steve wrote:
_fatprop wrote:
Brumbie_Steve wrote:
Anyone who claims to be an 'issues' voter will be voting Labor. The key issues for the future are the NBN and the parental leave scheme. The liberal policies on both are shockers and for that alone they should be slaughtered. Unfortunately a combination of liberal lemmings, die hard racists (tony cynically attacking one nation for their constituents), religious nut jobs and the blatantly self interested in combination with brain dead agrarian socialists is enough to gain power.


Well, I have said it before, but why not.

Elections are lost by the incumbents, not won by the opposition.

Labor lost this election a couple of years ago through internal infighting, their state counterparts corruption and simple ineptitude (all self inflicted wounds), since then, the only issue has been the margin of victory.

But if it makes you feel better blame the media, or the weather or the colour of Abbott's tie or cynical policy.


So I'll put you down as a die hard racist?


which die hard racists? the ones supporting the "Papua New Guinea solution" or the ones supporting the "stop the boats solution"


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:29 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4248
Vuaka wrote:
Labor might have the "faceless" men but the Liberals have the "invisible" men (and women).

Apparently for the past two weeks, the Liberals candidates in Western Sydney have refused to engage in debates or be interviewed by the media. Not sure if this extends to News Ltd as they would be painted in the best light regardless.

Where in the world is Jaymes Diaz? Claims to be a lawyer but doesn't have a current practising certificate.

I can't believe this numb nut is going to be a parliamentarian. I guess the people of Greenway will get what they deserve.


It's pretty rare for any bog standard prospective parliamentary candidate from any party to engage in debates, isn't it? Indeed, that would usually be forbidden by the central party administration I’d think – too much risk of them going off-piste and leading to negative headlines. I’ve only ever seen the leaders engage in debates, and even then only after careful preparation.

I’m not sure exactly what instances you have seen of them refusing to engage in debates, or what form any proposed debate was meant to take. It does strike me that it wouldn’t be a bad tactic for Labor candidates to challenge their Coalition counterparts to debates, safe in the knowledge that there is not a hope in hell of the offer being accepted. They can then accuse their opponents of refusing to debate the issues from a position of total safety. But if the boot were on the other foot, exactly the same thing would probably happen.

Terminology as laid down in the Legal Profession Acts of the various states:

"Australian Lawyer" = anyone who has passed all their exams/done their articles and been admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of their state.

"Australian Legal Practitioner" = an Australian Lawyer who has a current practising certificate, which you'd only bother to get if you intended to practise as a lawyer and were currently employed as such or working in partnership. There are plenty of Australian Lawyers who don't have practising certificates if they've decided to do something else with their lives.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24590
Location: Queensland
karahi wrote:
Vuaka wrote:
Labor might have the "faceless" men but the Liberals have the "invisible" men (and women).

Apparently for the past two weeks, the Liberals candidates in Western Sydney have refused to engage in debates or be interviewed by the media. Not sure if this extends to News Ltd as they would be painted in the best light regardless.

Where in the world is Jaymes Diaz? Claims to be a lawyer but doesn't have a current practising certificate.

I can't believe this numb nut is going to be a parliamentarian. I guess the people of Greenway will get what they deserve.


It's pretty rare for any bog standard prospective parliamentary candidate from any party to engage in debates, isn't it? Indeed, that would usually be forbidden by the central party administration I’d think – too much risk of them going off-piste and leading to negative headlines. I’ve only ever seen the leaders engage in debates, and even then only after careful preparation.

I’m not sure exactly what instances you have seen of them refusing to engage in debates, or what form any proposed debate was meant to take. It does strike me that it wouldn’t be a bad tactic for Labor candidates to challenge their Coalition counterparts to debates, safe in the knowledge that there is not a hope in hell of the offer being accepted. They can then accuse their opponents of refusing to debate the issues from a position of total safety. But if the boot were on the other foot, exactly the same thing would probably happen.


There have been lots of debates and debate style engagements across many electorates this election, with the vast majority involving local candidates facing off. These tend take place on local radio stations or in front of town hall style gatherings.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:30 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5769
Ali's Choice wrote:
karahi wrote:
Vuaka wrote:
Labor might have the "faceless" men but the Liberals have the "invisible" men (and women).

Apparently for the past two weeks, the Liberals candidates in Western Sydney have refused to engage in debates or be interviewed by the media. Not sure if this extends to News Ltd as they would be painted in the best light regardless.

Where in the world is Jaymes Diaz? Claims to be a lawyer but doesn't have a current practising certificate.

I can't believe this numb nut is going to be a parliamentarian. I guess the people of Greenway will get what they deserve.


It's pretty rare for any bog standard prospective parliamentary candidate from any party to engage in debates, isn't it? Indeed, that would usually be forbidden by the central party administration I’d think – too much risk of them going off-piste and leading to negative headlines. I’ve only ever seen the leaders engage in debates, and even then only after careful preparation.

I’m not sure exactly what instances you have seen of them refusing to engage in debates, or what form any proposed debate was meant to take. It does strike me that it wouldn’t be a bad tactic for Labor candidates to challenge their Coalition counterparts to debates, safe in the knowledge that there is not a hope in hell of the offer being accepted. They can then accuse their opponents of refusing to debate the issues from a position of total safety. But if the boot were on the other foot, exactly the same thing would probably happen.


There have been lots of debates and debate style engagements across many electorates this election, with the vast majority involving local candidates facing off. These tend take place on local radio stations or in front of town hall style gatherings.


Diaz is a dud candidate, it will be a very sad day if he wins on Saturday (Labor can't be that shit, can they?)


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:32 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4248
Ali's Choice wrote:
karahi wrote:
Vuaka wrote:
Labor might have the "faceless" men but the Liberals have the "invisible" men (and women).

Apparently for the past two weeks, the Liberals candidates in Western Sydney have refused to engage in debates or be interviewed by the media. Not sure if this extends to News Ltd as they would be painted in the best light regardless.

Where in the world is Jaymes Diaz? Claims to be a lawyer but doesn't have a current practising certificate.

I can't believe this numb nut is going to be a parliamentarian. I guess the people of Greenway will get what they deserve.


It's pretty rare for any bog standard prospective parliamentary candidate from any party to engage in debates, isn't it? Indeed, that would usually be forbidden by the central party administration I’d think – too much risk of them going off-piste and leading to negative headlines. I’ve only ever seen the leaders engage in debates, and even then only after careful preparation.

I’m not sure exactly what instances you have seen of them refusing to engage in debates, or what form any proposed debate was meant to take. It does strike me that it wouldn’t be a bad tactic for Labor candidates to challenge their Coalition counterparts to debates, safe in the knowledge that there is not a hope in hell of the offer being accepted. They can then accuse their opponents of refusing to debate the issues from a position of total safety. But if the boot were on the other foot, exactly the same thing would probably happen.


There have been lots of debates and debate style engagements across many electorates this election, with the vast majority involving local candidates facing off. These tend take place on local radio stations or in front of town hall style gatherings.


OK, I'll take your word for it.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:45 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3565
Location: Born from an Egg on a Mountain Top
Salient wrote:
Vuaka wrote:
Labor might have the "faceless" men but the Liberals have the "invisible" men (and women).

Apparently for the past two weeks, the Liberals candidates in Western Sydney have refused to engage in debates or be interviewed by the media. Not sure if this extends to News Ltd as they would be painted in the best light regardless.

Where in the world is Jaymes Diaz? Claims to be a lawyer but doesn't have a current practising certificate.

I can't believe this numb nut is going to be a parliamentarian. I guess the people of Greenway will get what they deserve.


He probably doesn't know he needs a certificate, assume from the Bar Association? - hell he doesn't know his own party's policies or apparently how to tie his shoes on his own. Finally a candidate that makes Clive look level headed, thank you the Libs :lol:

With a week to go I'm predicting a 2.4 swing to the LNP with a few seats swinging randomly on local issues.


He probably just did the NSW Solicitors Admission Board course then never went to the College of Law so he could actually practice.

Karachi, are you a citizen now and qualified to vote?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 3:12 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 7572
Farva wrote:
I believe joe hockey, the shadow treasurer, was a prop.

Tony Abbott also played rugby and was a prop.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 4:06 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3565
Location: Born from an Egg on a Mountain Top
grievous wrote:
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
grievous wrote:
Taranaki Snapper wrote:
A fun weekend in the heart of Hockeyville, had to dodge squads of Blueshirts who were patrolling the local cafe strip yesterday and this morning had the local shopkeep put a "Real Solutions" pamphlet on top of my sunday paper, I put it back on the pile but he tried to do it again with my change...


You buy sunday papers? :x


seriously, what the fudge is wrong with you?

nothing I was taking the piss :| , sunday papers, no content etc, you seem to have a hangover from the game thread Snaps, f**king chill out


Talk about highly strung :lol:

Anyway back on topic, you wouldn't see this in a Uncle Rups publication:

http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia ... 2sytb.html


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 3226
Groucho, Mat, can you explain to me in a little detail how exactly the coalition's NBN policy won't be upgradeable? Groucho mentioned that the finer can't be run from the node to the home, why is that?

Also, some nerd told me the other day that the NBN shouldn't have been laid out like it is, and should have been installed in rings or something. He reckoned the 'spiderweb' pattern of the network makes it 'prone to catastrophic failure'.

I smelled bullshit, but I don't know enough to argue.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 6:22 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 4465
Redsfan wrote:
Groucho, Mat, can you explain to me in a little detail how exactly the coalition's NBN policy won't be upgradeable? Groucho mentioned that the finer can't be run from the node to the home, why is that?

Also, some nerd told me the other day that the NBN shouldn't have been laid out like it is, and should have been installed in rings or something. He reckoned the 'spiderweb' pattern of the network makes it 'prone to catastrophic failure'.

I smelled bullshit, but I don't know enough to argue.


The copper that runs from the Coalition's "Nodes" to the homes of subscribers would need to be ripped up and replaced with fibre to finish the link. Can you imagine how much this will cost if it's not done as part of the original scope of works?

:shock:

Also, Telstra are laughing as the cost to maintain their copper network is huge - they've been bought out by the NBN. The cost for them has vanished and they get a major share of the NBN for nothing. Good business for them.

The bit from your mate is complete bullshit in so far as any system is subject to catastrophic failure. To make it truly redundant would cost nearly triple the current figures.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:44 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 457
karahi wrote:
Vuaka wrote:
Labor might have the "faceless" men but the Liberals have the "invisible" men (and women).

Apparently for the past two weeks, the Liberals candidates in Western Sydney have refused to engage in debates or be interviewed by the media. Not sure if this extends to News Ltd as they would be painted in the best light regardless.

Where in the world is Jaymes Diaz? Claims to be a lawyer but doesn't have a current practising certificate.

I can't believe this numb nut is going to be a parliamentarian. I guess the people of Greenway will get what they deserve.


It's pretty rare for any bog standard prospective parliamentary candidate from any party to engage in debates, isn't it? Indeed, that would usually be forbidden by the central party administration I’d think – too much risk of them going off-piste and leading to negative headlines. I’ve only ever seen the leaders engage in debates, and even then only after careful preparation.

I’m not sure exactly what instances you have seen of them refusing to engage in debates, or what form any proposed debate was meant to take. It does strike me that it wouldn’t be a bad tactic for Labor candidates to challenge their Coalition counterparts to debates, safe in the knowledge that there is not a hope in hell of the offer being accepted. They can then accuse their opponents of refusing to debate the issues from a position of total safety. But if the boot were on the other foot, exactly the same thing would probably happen.

Terminology as laid down in the Legal Profession Acts of the various states:

"Australian Lawyer" = anyone who has passed all their exams/done their articles and been admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of their state.

"Australian Legal Practitioner" = an Australian Lawyer who has a current practising certificate, which you'd only bother to get if you intended to practise as a lawyer and were currently employed as such or working in partnership. There are plenty of Australian Lawyers who don't have practising certificates if they've decided to do something else with their lives.


You're not wrong. It's a directive from Liberal HQ to not allow their candidates to be interviewed or engage in debates. I think SBS reported on this. Smart move really as it removes the opportunity for them to be another Jayme Diaz. Only Turnbull agreed to be interviewed but he is a seasoned performer.

The refusal to engage in debates / interviews has been at Western Sydney high schools. The Greens, Liberals and Labor were invited to a number of schools to explain their policies and answer questions. Only Labor and the Greens fronted. All of the Liberal candidates declined to show up.

Mind you, this was not in front of cameras, but in front of school kids.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:53 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 457
karahi wrote:
Terminology as laid down in the Legal Profession Acts of the various states:

"Australian Lawyer" = anyone who has passed all their exams/done their articles and been admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of their state.

"Australian Legal Practitioner" = an Australian Lawyer who has a current practising certificate, which you'd only bother to get if you intended to practise as a lawyer and were currently employed as such or working in partnership. There are plenty of Australian Lawyers who don't have practising certificates if they've decided to do something else with their lives.


Diaz works in his dad's practice as an immigration lawyer.

He had a certificate but it expired on 30 June. I guess he probably doesn't need one in Parliament.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 12:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 457
_fatprop wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
karahi wrote:
Vuaka wrote:
Labor might have the "faceless" men but the Liberals have the "invisible" men (and women).

Apparently for the past two weeks, the Liberals candidates in Western Sydney have refused to engage in debates or be interviewed by the media. Not sure if this extends to News Ltd as they would be painted in the best light regardless.

Where in the world is Jaymes Diaz? Claims to be a lawyer but doesn't have a current practising certificate.

I can't believe this numb nut is going to be a parliamentarian. I guess the people of Greenway will get what they deserve.


It's pretty rare for any bog standard prospective parliamentary candidate from any party to engage in debates, isn't it? Indeed, that would usually be forbidden by the central party administration I’d think – too much risk of them going off-piste and leading to negative headlines. I’ve only ever seen the leaders engage in debates, and even then only after careful preparation.

I’m not sure exactly what instances you have seen of them refusing to engage in debates, or what form any proposed debate was meant to take. It does strike me that it wouldn’t be a bad tactic for Labor candidates to challenge their Coalition counterparts to debates, safe in the knowledge that there is not a hope in hell of the offer being accepted. They can then accuse their opponents of refusing to debate the issues from a position of total safety. But if the boot were on the other foot, exactly the same thing would probably happen.


There have been lots of debates and debate style engagements across many electorates this election, with the vast majority involving local candidates facing off. These tend take place on local radio stations or in front of town hall style gatherings.


Diaz is a dud candidate, it will be a very sad day if he wins on Saturday (Labor can't be that shit, can they?)


Abbott was against Diaz' preselection for this seat. However, Diaz had strong support at local branch level, and especially by the large Filipino community in the North-West.

Should be a shoe in for Diaz so Abbott will be happy with that.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11479
Location: STRAYA CUNT
Anyone see the latest Economist? They endorsed Labor, weren't exactly forthcoming with praise for either side though.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
Vuaka wrote:
karahi wrote:
Terminology as laid down in the Legal Profession Acts of the various states:

"Australian Lawyer" = anyone who has passed all their exams/done their articles and been admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of their state.

"Australian Legal Practitioner" = an Australian Lawyer who has a current practising certificate, which you'd only bother to get if you intended to practise as a lawyer and were currently employed as such or working in partnership. There are plenty of Australian Lawyers who don't have practising certificates if they've decided to do something else with their lives.


Diaz works in his dad's practice as an immigration lawyer.

He had a certificate but it expired on 30 June. I guess he probably doesn't need one in Parliament.


If an immigration lawyer's certificate expires, does he have to go to PNG?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 5615
Location: Vandean Coast
Tony Jones is doing a great job of winding up KRudd on Q&A


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31704
Location: in transit
6roucho wrote:
Vuaka wrote:
karahi wrote:
Terminology as laid down in the Legal Profession Acts of the various states:

"Australian Lawyer" = anyone who has passed all their exams/done their articles and been admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of their state.

"Australian Legal Practitioner" = an Australian Lawyer who has a current practising certificate, which you'd only bother to get if you intended to practise as a lawyer and were currently employed as such or working in partnership. There are plenty of Australian Lawyers who don't have practising certificates if they've decided to do something else with their lives.


Diaz works in his dad's practice as an immigration lawyer.

He had a certificate but it expired on 30 June. I guess he probably doesn't need one in Parliament.


If an immigration lawyer's certificate expires, does he have to go to PNG?



Nice.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:08 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24590
Location: Queensland
deadduck wrote:
Tony Jones is doing a great job of winding up KRudd on Q&A


He is? We're watching a different show. Rudd has remained calm, cool and articulate (albeit a little boring and unispiring) despite Jones repeatedly interrupting him. I notice your preferred PM Tony Abbott shamefully refused to attend the show.


Last edited by Ali's Choice on Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
Dumbledore wrote:
Anyone see the latest Economist? They endorsed Labor, weren't exactly forthcoming with praise for either side though.


So one one side we have the Economist, the IMF and the World Bank, and on the other the massed armies of Rupert Murdoch and his representative on Earth, Andrew Bolt? Dayum, this is just like the finale of the Lord Of The Rings!


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:10 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11479
Location: STRAYA CUNT
deadduck wrote:
Tony Jones is doing a great job of winding up KRudd on Q&A

Tony Jones has become an absolute flog. He's almost as bad as Rudd at this point.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:12 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11479
Location: STRAYA CUNT
6roucho wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
Anyone see the latest Economist? They endorsed Labor, weren't exactly forthcoming with praise for either side though.


So one one side we have the Economist, the IMF and the World Bank, and on the other the massed armies of Rupert Murdoch and his representative on Earth, Andrew Bolt? Dayum, this is just like the finale of the Lord Of The Rings!

They basically said Rudd is a plum, compared Labor unfavourably to the CCP, but then decided that the Coaltion were such a contemptible, untrustworthy, joke of a party that you couldn't possibly vote for them in good conscience.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:13 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 31704
Location: in transit
Dumbledore wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Tony Jones is doing a great job of winding up KRudd on Q&A

Tony Jones has become an absolute flog. He's almost as bad as Rudd at this point.


A fair call, the likeness has struck me before.

Jones has become too big for the show, he needs to go. Too much of him, not enough of ALL the guests.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
Dumbledore wrote:
6roucho wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
Anyone see the latest Economist? They endorsed Labor, weren't exactly forthcoming with praise for either side though.


So one one side we have the Economist, the IMF and the World Bank, and on the other the massed armies of Rupert Murdoch and his representative on Earth, Andrew Bolt? Dayum, this is just like the finale of the Lord Of The Rings!

They basically said Rudd is a plum, compared Labor unfavourably to the CCP, but then decided that the Coaltion were such a contemptible, untrustworthy, joke of a party that you couldn't possibly vote for them in good conscience.


Yes, Arrogant's a conflicted hero. It's all down to Legless and Dildo.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:16 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11479
Location: STRAYA CUNT
guy smiley wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Tony Jones is doing a great job of winding up KRudd on Q&A

Tony Jones has become an absolute flog. He's almost as bad as Rudd at this point.


A fair call, the likeness has struck me before.

Jones has become too big for the show, he needs to go. Too much of him, not enough of ALL the guests.

Especially the wimmen. He doesn't like too much chat from them.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:29 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 11479
Location: STRAYA CUNT
What did we do to deserve these idiots?

Quote:
TONY Abbott has rebooted the history wars with a warning too much emphasis on left wing politics in the national curriculum will be reviewed by a Coalition government.

The Opposition leader told the National Press Club the curriculum lacks focus on Australia's past, "other than indigenous heritage" and has "too great a focus on issues which are the predominant concern of one side of politics".

"I think the unions are mentioned far more than business," Mr Abbott said.

"I think there are a couple of Labor prime ministers who get a mention, from memory not a single Coalition prime minister. So I think it is possible to do better."

The only Prime Minister mentioned by name in the foundation to Year 10 curriculum is John Curtin, who led the Labor Party from 1935 to 1945.

Abbott speech: In 2050, you'll be glad you got rid of the carbon tax

Mr Abbott said any changes to the curriculum would be guided by "professional educators", but it is unclear how this will happen, given that the Coalition school's policy, unveiled last week, reveals plans to "refocus" the body that implements the curriculum.

"I think we're entitled to say (we) could do better. I think we're entitled to say maybe you ought to have a rethink about this, but what actually happens is ultimately a matter for them," he said.

The move comes after News Corp reported earlier this year the "black armband" view of how the Anzac legend is taught would also be changed by an incoming Abbot government.

Shadow education spokesman Christopher Pyne said in April one of the first education priorities of the Coalition would be restore Anzac Day to its "rightful" place of respect.

Critics of the curriculum say a trend towards political correctness means history classes are placing undue emphasis on indigenous culture, Asia and sustainability, with Anzac Day mentioned in the context of other national days such as Ramadan and Buddha Day.

``This would be a priority for us. The Coalition doesn't have a black-armband view of Australia's history,'' Mr Pyne said.

Labor introduced a national curriculum in 2011 for English, Science, Maths and History, with the remainder of the syllabus scheduled to be implemented by 2016.

Australian Education Union Angelo Gavrielatos said the Coalition's claims of a left wing bias in the curriculum were incorrect.

"We certainly hope that this is not an indication of an intent to reinstate the culture wars of the past," Mr Gavrielatos said, referring to heated debate during the Howard government years over the emphasis of England's role in Australia's history.

The "history wars" were a feature of the Howard government, with the then Prime Minister in 2006 calling for changes in the way children were taught about Australia's past and an end to the "divisive, phony debate about national identity".

Mr Howard used his Australia Day address to the National Press Club on the 10th anniversary of his leadership to call for a "coalition of the willing" to promote changes to the teaching of history, which he said was neglected in schools, slanted towards apologising for the past and questioning national achievement.

"Too often, it is taught without any sense of structured narrative, replaced by a fragmented stew of 'themes' and 'issues'," Mr Howard said. "And too often, history, along with other subjects in the humanities, has succumbed to a postmodern culture of relativism where any objective record of achievement is questioned or repudiated.

"Part of preparing young Australians to be informed and active citizens is to teach them the central currents of our nation's development."

NSW Teacher's Federation president Maurie Mulheron said Mr Abbott was seeking to "politicise" the curriculum.

"It's a shame because of the extraordinary work of so many teachers involved in writing the syllabus, and now they are going to start questioning the professionalism of those teachers," he said.

Mr Pyne said the Coalition would take away ACARA's assessment role, which has been increasingly controversial in the wake of criticism of the NAPLAN regime - which an Abbott government would also review.

"We will refocus the Australian Curriculum and Assessment Authority, to ensure that it is focused on developing the highest standard curriculum documents," Mr Pyne said.

"It will become the Australian Curriculum Authority, but the agency will retain its existing responsibility for drafting the national curriculum documents on behalf of the Federal Government and the States and Territories."

Mr Pyne said the Coalition had been calling for the curriculum "to give appropriate weight to our western and judeo-Christian heritage as a nation" since it was first drafted.

A spokesperson for ACARA said "ACARA, as an independent authority, would not comment on statements made in the lead up to the election. The F-10 history curriculum approved by the Council of Federal, State and Territory Education Ministers is available on the Australian Curriculum website."


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 457
6roucho wrote:
Vuaka wrote:
karahi wrote:
Terminology as laid down in the Legal Profession Acts of the various states:

"Australian Lawyer" = anyone who has passed all their exams/done their articles and been admitted as a lawyer by the Supreme Court of their state.

"Australian Legal Practitioner" = an Australian Lawyer who has a current practising certificate, which you'd only bother to get if you intended to practise as a lawyer and were currently employed as such or working in partnership. There are plenty of Australian Lawyers who don't have practising certificates if they've decided to do something else with their lives.


Diaz works in his dad's practice as an immigration lawyer.

He had a certificate but it expired on 30 June. I guess he probably doesn't need one in Parliament.


If an immigration lawyer's certificate expires, does he have to go to PNG?


Depends on whether the Coalition has bought his boat.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 457
Dumbledore wrote:
guy smiley wrote:
Dumbledore wrote:
deadduck wrote:
Tony Jones is doing a great job of winding up KRudd on Q&A

Tony Jones has become an absolute flog. He's almost as bad as Rudd at this point.


A fair call, the likeness has struck me before.

Jones has become too big for the show, he needs to go. Too much of him, not enough of ALL the guests.

Especially the wimmen. He doesn't like too much chat from them.


I wish Tony Jones would just moderate the questions. He thinks that he is the audience. Might as well give him a whistle. Attention seeker.

I think Leigh Sales did the job fairly well when she had to stand in for Jones... or am I thinking of someone else?


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:46 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24590
Location: Queensland
Rudd started slowly, but ended this show well. Loved him pwning that religious nutjob, which for me was the highlight of the show.]


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:50 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 145
Location: Straya, cnuts!
kiap wrote:
The FTTH NBN is still the popular option as I see it. Not sure too many punters actually want Malcolm's 2nd rate plan. Best scenario is the Libs do a backflip: "Too far into the process to cancel". But who knows...


That's how I saw it too.

Disclosure statement - I've worked in telecoms and data then convergent networking for over 25 years. I'm gagging for FTTH and have every technical and personal reason to prefer it.

But my kids - early to mid 20's professionals wedded to the internet and their laptops for work an play and they think that I'm "out of date"

NONE of them have so much as a telephone line in their homes. All of them have wireless networking and telephones and don't want an old fashioned cable (fibre) tying them to one spot. And almost none of their friends want fibre either.

Maybe the optimum is a hybrid scheme with fibre used to flood suburbs with high speed wireless internet and FTTP for businesses, government and those old enough to like permanence. I know my kids would like that. OTOH the tree huggers would get all kumbaya about the extra "radio-activity"

Insane


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 1:54 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 145
Location: Straya, cnuts!
Ali's Choice wrote:
Rudd started slowly, but ended this show well. Loved him pwning that religious nutjob, which for me was the highlight of the show.]


Didn't see it, but my observation of him (from a coffee shop near the Oxford St church he attends when he wants the religious vote and seldom otherwise) is that he's just your bog standard Australian faux religious nutjob himself. He'd be on familiar ground

Insane


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24590
Location: Queensland
inshane wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Rudd started slowly, but ended this show well. Loved him pwning that religious nutjob, which for me was the highlight of the show.]


Didn't see it, but my observation of him (from a coffee shop near the Oxford St church he attends when he wants the religious vote and seldom otherwise) is that he's just your bog standard Australian faux religious nutjob himself. He'd be on familiar ground

Insane


You've just admitted to the forum that you didn't watch the show which I was specifically commenting on. So why did you bother responding to my post? With all due respect I don't appreciate having my time wasted by sub-100 post nothing-posters.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 9505
Location: Gangly Beehive
inshane wrote:
kiap wrote:
The FTTH NBN is still the popular option as I see it. Not sure too many punters actually want Malcolm's 2nd rate plan. Best scenario is the Libs do a backflip: "Too far into the process to cancel". But who knows...


That's how I saw it too.

Disclosure statement - I've worked in telecoms and data then convergent networking for over 25 years. I'm gagging for FTTH and have every technical and personal reason to prefer it.

But my kids - early to mid 20's professionals wedded to the internet and their laptops for work an play and they think that I'm "out of date"

NONE of them have so much as a telephone line in their homes. All of them have wireless networking and telephones and don't want an old fashioned cable (fibre) tying them to one spot. And almost none of their friends want fibre either.

Maybe the optimum is a hybrid scheme with fibre used to flood suburbs with high speed wireless internet and FTTP for businesses, government and those old enough to like permanence. I know my kids would like that. OTOH the tree huggers would get all kumbaya about the extra "radio-activity"

Insane


The problem with that idea is the bandwidth bottlenecks of wireless networks, even taking into account next-generation compression systems. There's only so much space in the aether. If instead of running fiber to 10,000 wireless networks in individual homes and offices, you run fiber to 100 wireless networks built into nodes, and you still wish to deliver future-proof speeds to users, then you need wireless networks of phenomenal capability. We don't know if that will ever be possible.


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:09 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 457
inshane wrote:
Ali's Choice wrote:
Rudd started slowly, but ended this show well. Loved him pwning that religious nutjob, which for me was the highlight of the show.]


Didn't see it, but my observation of him (from a coffee shop near the Oxford St church he attends when he wants the religious vote and seldom otherwise) is that he's just your bog standard Australian faux religious nutjob himself. He'd be on familiar ground

Insane


Rudd's probably lost a lot of the right-wing conservative religious vote by his change in stance on gay marriage.

To be fair, he never had it any way.

I thought it was pretty funny. You could see the anger welling within the pastor when put on the spot about homosexuality, choking on his words.... and ended with the audience laughing at him. :lol:


Top
 Profile  
 
PostPosted: Mon Sep 02, 2013 2:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jan 31, 2012 11:05 am
Posts: 24590
Location: Queensland
Vuaka wrote:
I thought it was pretty funny. You could see the anger welling within the pastor when put on the spot about homosexuality, choking on his words.... and ended with the audience laughing at him. :lol:


Yeah made me laugh too. You could actually see the pastor's anger turn to hate, and then humiliation once he realised he was being publicly shamed.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 23900 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 ... 598  Next

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: 4071, 45jumper, AlanBengio, backrow, beastofbrum, Beaver_Shark, bessantj, Bing [Bot], BlackMac, Blake, BokJock, Boomslang, bw245, CarrotGawks, Chilli, Clog50Percent, Croft, Derwyn, doodles.dude, Double, DragsterDriver, driftwood, DuncanF, easyray, eldanielfire, EverReady, farmerdave, Farva, Fiigmo, fishooks15, franch fan, GDBFC99, grimoald, grubberkick, ihavenopantson, IKUR01, inactionman, Insane_Homer, jambanja, jamesfreeman, james garner, Jensrsa, Kiwias, korben_dallas, Leffe, Leinsterman, lemonhead, Lobby, Lorthern Nights, ManInTheBar, Marshall Banana, maxbox, mdaclarke, mr bungle, Mr Mike, nardol, Nolanator, Nui., Oxbow, paynie, PCPhil, Peaches, pigaaaa, polyallstar, Property, Rhinosaur, RodneyRegis, Ron Kickpass, RoscoPColtrain, Salanya, Sandstorm, Sards, Seez, slow wing, sockwithaticket, somer, Sonny Blount, Southernscot, Sydvicious, terangi48, The Native, TheSmurf, Toulon's Not Toulouse, Tussock, Waka Nathan, Wignu and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group