Terrorist Attacks

[22nd Man]

The media overall is very much left of centre. The media regularly get shocked by election results like Trump, Brit exit as they all report 1 way.

Why would the media be left of centre? Is it just a point in time thing or has it always been thus? What are the commercial and social factors that make the media left of centre?

I am assuming that most people would be more comfortable if the media was neither left or right of centre but isn't that also taking a stance?

 

[thegdog]

I know the family. Eggboy isn't a great kid. Not sure how I'd feel if it was my son who did this. Better ways to approach it. Got 500,000 instagram followers though.. :spin

Scumbag attention seeking brat who deserved everything he got and more. Disgrace he is making money from idiots that donate to fund page, no wonder society is poo!

 

[22nd Man]

I hope she keeps up the great work.

May she keep this momentum going and become a first class world leader for others to aspire to. Particularly for young Aussie females who need to be more involved in politics.

Think Helen Clark went into a big gig after her stint as NZ PM. Much to Kevin07s chagrin. Kev was his own man though, shorten increasingly talks and acts like he being remotally controlled from a bunker under Trades Hall.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Exactly.

There needs to be a better way for preferences. For a start there needs to be transparency of where your vote preferences go to after your candidate is knocked out. Perhaps they can name and shame the parties who got this dangerous fool elected.

I've said for years that the Senate electoral system needs to be reformed. My preferred model would be to abolish above the line group voting. Change to something like the Hare-Clarke system used in Tasmania and the ACT for their elections.

For a usual half Senate election it would require a voter to simply number at least 1-6 preferences (and as many or as few as they want thereafter) to be a valid vote. For a full Senate, double dissolution it would be at least 1-12. Combine this with the Robson Rotation. What happens with the Robson Rotation is that candidates are still placed in groups as they are now. But on each ballot paper printed, the candidate's position rotates within their group. Each group's position also rotates where the group is placed across the page to cut out the influence of the donkey vote. It takes the power away from the Party machines and gives it back to the electors.

It would make it impossible for a fringe dweller with *smile* all votes to win a seat, which is possible in the current deceitful system.

 

[Willo]

I've said for years that the Senate electoral system needs to be reformed. My preferred model would be to abolish above the line group voting. Change to something like the Hare-Clarke system used in Tasmania and the ACT for their elections.

For a usual half Senate election it would require a voter to simply number at least 1-6 preferences (and as many or as few as they want thereafter) to be a valid vote. For a full Senate, double dissolution it would be at least 1-12. Combine this with the Robson Rotation. What happens with the Robson Rotation is that candidates are still placed in groups as they are now. But on each ballot paper printed, the candidate's position rotates within their group. Each group's position also rotates where the group is placed across the page to cut out the influence of the donkey vote. It takes the power away from the Party machines and gives it back to the electors.

It would make it impossible for a fringe dweller with *smile* all votes to win a seat, which is possible in the current deceitful system.

Food for thought.
Is the reason they don't follow this because the 2 major parties see it as a disadvantage to them?

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Ardern. Such a strong leader. She is absolutely brilliant.

I kind of get what you're saying and yes, she's been empathetic and well spoken during the events - doing what one expects a PM to do in such circumstances, no more no less. A job well done.

But what I'm not understanding is the kind of messianic worship. How is she doing things differently to other competent leaders under similar circumstances? Bill Clinton after Oklahoma City, Barrack Obama after Sandy Hook, Francois Hollande after the Paris attacks, or even John Howard after Port Arthur? As far as I can remember, all acted similarly, as one would hope and expect of their Political Leaders in such circumstances. And as such, I'm not sure what she is doing differently to what any other NZ PM would have done.

I even heard a conversation on the radio where one person was saying, how lucky NZ was to have such a PM. The other was replying that there's nothing lucky about it, NZ voters are so so smart, empathetic and compassionate to vote in such a leader - which is a total exaggeration. It wasn't anything as romantic as that. There was a hung Parliament, Winston Peters, from the right-wing populist NZ First Party was king maker and could have chosen either side. He went Labor due to the better political deal they offered him and hence Ardern is PM. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it appears as the western world has abandoned religion, they are turning to other demigods to worship and create mythology about, as opposed to looking at things objectively.

Again, nothing mean spirited meant to Jacinta Ardern herself, she's been good. But I find the aura around her as eerily similar to religious worship.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Food for thought.
Is the reason they don't follow this because the 2 major parties see it as a disadvantage to them?

The current system is very self serving for any registered Political Party. They want to dictate as much as they can, how votes will flow. Not just the majors, but the Greens, One Nation and a host of other micro parties that have found methods to exploit it's quirks. Which I feel is quite outrageous in a democratic system where the aim should be to give as much power to the voters as is practical.

 

[22nd Man]

I kind of get what you're saying and yes, she's been empathetic and well spoken during the events - doing what one expects a PM to do in such circumstances, no more no less. A job well done.

But what I'm not understanding is the kind of messianic worship. How is she doing things differently to other competent leaders under similar circumstances? Bill Clinton after Oklahoma City, Barrack Obama after Sandy Hook, Francois Hollande after the Paris attacks, or even John Howard after Port Arthur? As far as I can remember, all acted similarly, as one would hope and expect of their Political Leaders in such circumstances. And as such, I'm not sure what she is doing differently to what any other NZ PM would have done.

I even heard a conversation on the radio where one person was saying, how lucky NZ was to have such a PM. The other was replying that there's nothing lucky about it, NZ voters are so so smart, empathetic and compassionate to vote in such a leader - which is a total exaggeration. It wasn't anything as romantic as that. There was a hung Parliament, Winston Peters, from the right-wing populist NZ First Party was king maker and could have chosen either side. He went Labor due to the better political deal they offered him and hence Ardern is PM. Nothing inherently wrong with that, but it appears as the western world has abandoned religion, they are turning to other demigods to worship and create mythology about, as opposed to looking at things objectively.

Again, nothing mean spirited meant to Jacinta Ardern herself, she's been good. But I find the aura around her as eerily similar to religious worship.

Good insight. Even John Brumby rose to the ocassion post Black Saturday.
As for the kiwis good judgement, must have been an off decade when they kept voting back Piggy Muldoon.

 

[22nd Man]

Did you forget Goerge W...post 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina....

 

[TigerForce]

Again, nothing mean spirited meant to Jacinta Ardern herself, she's been good. But I find the aura around her as eerily similar to religious worship.

I noticed her wearing a burqa when meeting the Muslims.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

Did you forget Goerge W...post 9-11 and Hurricane Katrina....

Too true, there are *smile* examples too, as you rightly point out. But I stand by my original point of people worshiping some form of superhuman mystical powers. I just get the sense that society is filling the void left by one form of illogical belief system (religion) with other illogical belief systems steeped in mythology - which is manifesting itself as unquestioning faith based worship of political figures and causes.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

I noticed her wearing a burqa when meeting the Muslims.

No, she wore a hijab. A burqa is what Pauline Hanson wore into the Senate chamber in her juvenile stunt.

And this is what most women visiting a mosque, and/or formal Muslim gatherings - even outsiders. It's just common manners. A bit like taking one's shoes off entering a Japanese or Korean house. They usually even have a few spares at the entrance of mosques for female visitors who may not be carrying one (my wife having worn them when we visited mosques as tourists while traveling).

Nothing overly unique, revolutionary or ground breaking about this. But commentators are acting like she's the first non-Muslim lady to ever don a headscarf while attending an engagement with Muslim people. Now, if the NZ PM was a bloke wearing a head scarf to an engagement with Muslim people, that would quite possibly be a first.......

 

[DavidSSS]

Exactly.

There needs to be a better way for preferences. For a start there needs to be transparency of where your vote preferences go to after your candidate is knocked out. Perhaps they can name and shame the parties who got this dangerous fool elected.

There is transparency, just not much of it. You can see all of the preference flows on the AEC website before the election. Not great, but it is there (and I recall at the recent State Election, not so easy to find). When above the line voting first came in I was a poll clerk and back then every polling booth had a poster of where the preferences went, it had to be there - this needs to come back. I have no issue with parties putting their candidates in order but what I would like to see is either the posters back in the polling booths or the only way to vote above the line would be to number each group (with a minimum number of groups, say 4 or 5, for a valid vote) but a 1 in only one of the boxes above the line would not be a valid vote. I am surprised the major parties don't do this as it would stuff up the preference deals of the very minor parties as voters would decide the order the preferences flow.

We also need to get away from the notion that a small number of primary votes is somehow an issue. Let me give an example: Labor get 1 million votes for candidate number 1 and 10 votes for candidate number 2; at the same election the Libs get 12 votes for candidate number 1. Who should get the second seat? The Libs? I don't think so.

As for the media, a more right wing pack of distortion peddlers it is hard to find. Murdoch owns most of it so that is hardly a surprise.

DS

 

[Panthera Tigris]

great post...lovely to read a voice of reason....and so profoundly true...the only people who suffer are always just the innocemt folks going about their day.....these hard core right wing guys are so far from any real danger

And in the past hour a man has opened fire on a tram in the Dutch city of Utrecht. Police are referring to it as a terrorist attack and the gunman is still at large. And once again, the only victims are poor innocents going about their every day lives. It just makes no rational sense. FFS, where does it end?

 

[TigerForce]

And in the past hour a man has opened fire on a tram in the Dutch city of Utrecht. Police are referring to it as a terrorist attack and the gunman is still at large. And once again, the only victims are poor innocents going about their every day lives. It just makes no rational sense. FFS, where does it end?

The domino effect is hard to break.

 

[LeeToRainesToRoach]

And in the past hour a man has opened fire on a tram in the Dutch city of Utrecht. Police are referring to it as a terrorist attack and the gunman is still at large. And once again, the only victims are poor innocents going about their every day lives. It just makes no rational sense. FFS, where does it end?

Foreigner with a long criminal record including charges of attempted murder and rape. Dutton the extremist is doing his best to expel such people.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

An honest question. I don't mean this as a loaded question trying to score points for the pro-gun lobby. Much is made of NZ's more liberal gun laws contributing to the Christchurch attacks (similar to what was faced in Australia in the aftermath of Port Arthur). However European nations (apart from Finland and Switzerland as exceptions) generally have very stringent gun laws. Yet the terrorist incidents we have seen there in recent times have been committed by people who seemingly had no issues getting hold of semi automatic and automatic firearms.

So my question is. Have any of you guys seen any literature about how these types of weapons are getting into Europe? Smuggled overland through Eastern Europe and/or Turkey perhaps?

 

[Ian4]

Off the top of my head, a lefty typically

- supports drastic action on climate change - I wouldn't use the word drastic, but action needs to be taken. tick.
- supports unfettered migration / open borders with a view to world government - big fat no for me as overpopulation is the biggest issue facing mankind. but our treatment of refugee's is a national shame
- supports heavy taxation to pay for social works (especially if at no cost to themselves) - very generalistic, but the rich, big business and churches should pay their fair share of taxes so no Australian is in poverty. i also have no problem paying more taxes if it is used the right way
- believes "progressive" values should supplant traditional ones - tick.
- supports an Australian republic - tick.
- sees criminals and other non-achievers as victims - lol, thats funny when the right is vocally defending a convicted cardinal as we speak. no for me.
- believes in political interference over democracy to enforce their views - i would say you've got that the wrong way around.
- big on ethics / personality, not so big on morals / character - again you have this the wrong way around.
- idealism > pragmatism - i'd say i'm more pragmatic than idealistic.
- is pro-abortion - tick.
- thinks Donald Trump is evil - tick.
- insists on his / her rights! - shouldn't everyone?

and may also

- support legalisation of drugs - massive tick and the biggest no brainer of all time as far as i'm concerned.
- regard tax avoidance, shoplifting, fare evasion and other anti-social practices (such as eggings, if the recipient is deemed deserving) as fair practice - the left being experts in tax avoidance? lol, just lol. and i don't condone the egging.
- regard an animal's life as equal to / more important than a human's - huge no for me.
- regard religion as nonsense and the cause of most of the world's ills - tick
- regard military spending as a low priority - semi tick.
- dislike / resent Australian culture - if you're refering to bogan culture that has a history of racism and violence again women, thats a tick. but if you're talking about our egalitarian culture and the ideal of giving everyone a "fair go," thats a no. this culture is dying IMO :'(
- support communist ideals - replace communism with the word socialism, then you have a tick.

 

[easy_tiger]

My thoughts on gun laws pt.

A farmer who says he needs an AR-15 on the farm is either 1. Lying through their teeth, or 2. Has no teeth.

They call them 'modern sports rifles'

But the popular high calibres are so people can either kill heaps of people fast, or fantisise about killing heaps of people fast ( mostly the latter, and mostly zombie apocalypse type stuff. They even sell a 'zombie stopper' load, i kid you not). The AR-15 is deliberately styled on military assault rifle aesthetics, so the user can fantasize about, or act like, hes in the movies.

Yes, farmers need shooting irons as much as they need tyre levers. Meaning, you probably need to dispatch a pest or euthenaise livestock about as often as repair a flat tyre. No doubt they are an indispensible tool.

But show me the farm where you need to euthenaise 50 sheep a minute, and ill show you a farmer i dont wish to share a boundry fence with

Banning high cal semi-automatics makes perfect sense.

But people who want them will still get them. But they will have to pay 10 times rrp, and so in some instanced the lone psycho will be too busy working a *smile* job to save up for one, to be on the internet reading and writing hateful crap and planning to do horrendous things to other people.

 

[Panthera Tigris]

My thoughts on gun laws pt.

A farmer who says he needs an AR-15 on the farm is either 1. Lying through their teeth, or 2. Has no teeth.

They call them 'modern sports rifles'

But the popular high calibres are so people can either kill heaps of people fast, or fantisise about killing heaps of people fast ( mostly the latter, and mostly zombie apocalypse type stuff. They even sell a 'zombie stopper' load, i kid you not). The AR-15 is deliberately styled on military assault rifle aesthetics, so the user can fantasize about, or act like, hes in the movies.

Yes, farmers need shooting irons as much as they need tyre levers. Meaning, you probably need to dispatch a pest or euthenaise livestock about as often as repair a flat tyre. No doubt they are an indispensible tool.

But show me the farm where you need to euthenaise 50 sheep a minute, and ill show you a farmer i dont wish to share a boundry fence with

Banning high cal semi-automatics makes perfect sense.

But people who want them will still get them. But they will have to pay 10 times rrp, and so in some instanced the lone psycho will be too busy working a sh!t job to save up for one, to be on the internet reading and writing hateful crap and planning to do horrendous things to other people.

Think you misinterpreted me Easy. I have no issue with any of what you say, wasn't intimating or taking any issue with the arguments for tougher gun laws.

The last sentence was more the crux of my question. The first bit, more just qualifying that it wasn't a loaded question trying to score points for the pro-gun lobby. The contrast between Australia having successfully, largely kept military and slightly sub-military firearms out of society with tough gun laws. Compared to Europe, with similarly tough gun laws , but seemingly some groups having few issues getting hold of them to use in terrorist incidents.