Jerry_Atrick

I meant to reply to this earlier... Because free speech today seems to be equivalent to lying about facts to support an opinion, as opposed to expressing an opinion (whether or not they are supported by facts), there would obviously have to be limits. Here's a video of a somewhat satirically educative youtuber I follow: The facts seem very easy to establish, however, what is really concerning is how the internet allows likes to propagate through seemingly informative podcasts in this case, complete lies designed to misinform the audience and pursaude a case for defunding an institution designed to protect people. The area of the Joe Rogan podcast touches some of the work I do; I didn't need to wait to the end of the video to know it was a complete untruth and would be able to be easily proved to be so. In terms of holding people to account for what is designed to influence people to resist institutions designed to protect them (we are going throught he same thing here with the European Court of Human Rights). the application of criminal jurispridence could well assuade your concerns. I am not sure what the question Whose facts means? Facts are facts that can be proved objectively. Otherwise they are a theory/statement/guess,. but not facts. But we can, using criminal jurisprudence, address some of the questions. For example, the standard of proof would have to be that the facts are objectively proveable beyond reasonable doubt - and that an untruth (not yet a lie) is one that materially contradicts the facts - such that there is no way the untruth could be construed to be in anyway to accord with the facts (in the context of the discussion). And, to make it a lie, it would have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt that the person intended it to be a lie or was reckless to its fact, again in the context of the discussion. Once you hit those two hurdles, you are fairly sure that is was a lie, and these standards are requireed for most crimes. You could add to the law that for anyone to be liable, there has to be an evident attempt to pursuade the audience of something in the interests of the liar or ayone connected to the discussion at the time.. It ain't perfect, but its a start and requires further debate and discussion to get it almost right. That is why rushing it through would have probably been worse... Although I hadn't seen the bill so have no idea of its merits.

Well, we have had to take matters into our own hands Bought a random orbital sander and got out the belt sander to do the vestibule floor.. I thought it was soft wood, but f! me, it is some hard wood. Have been at it all afternoon and this is all I have got done: I am thinking of just ripping it all up, planing it and putting it back, and have to buy new skirting boards And to make matters worse, I can't find the dust bag for the belt sander, so there is sawdust everywhere.

I liken Albo to a cross between SFM and Joan Kirner. SFM because, at a political level, he was a party enforcer that managed to get to the top more on the failings of others than his own leadership merit. Joan Kirner, because at the time the electorate were calling for something to be done, he and his party hasn't done much and propogate the status quo.. and does little to debumk the perception that all of the pollies (at least for the majors) are the same. The electoral donations reform are thee to preserve the two party stronghold, and what do you get with a duopoly? Two snouts atthe trough, but not much competition. Here are two vids of toobers I follow - both would seem to normally align themselves more towards Labor than LNP style ideologies, but even they can't find too much to like about how Albo is progressing with these electoral reforms (well, they find some good things about it, but not a lot). What I didn't know what that similar reforms were made in Victorian politics and guess what? Virtually no more independents and only 7 Greens across both houses of the Vic parliament.

Timnes have changed in the UK, too. Neither of my kids birth certificates list the exact address of birth - one London, the other Surrey..

Yes.. but be careful whatyou ask for... my son is thinking he quite likes Hobart.. we could end up too close for comfort 😉

That's your choice. I have never had to put an address in as a place of birth..

Friday's gripe... London's trai.. er.. stuff it..life's too short to be a grumpy old man.. I am inviting Wolfie around 😉

https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/museum-of-political-disasters-truth-bill-dies-as-greens-join-coalition-to-block-it-20241122-p5ksx0.html?js-chunk-not-found-refresh=true https://greens.org.au/news/media-release/greens-vote-against-aged-care-legislation-labor-caves-coalition-and-profit admittedly, this is from their website, but will take at face value their claims https://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/explained-the-governments-stalled-housing-agenda-and-why-the-greens-are-opposing-it/wnvzf1i2u But for a list of all bills that failed, including those not sponsored by the government, here is the complete list: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Bills_Legislation/Bills_not_passed_current_Parliament?drt=2&drv=7&drvH=7&pnu=47&pnuH=47&f=26%2f07%2f2022&to=29%2f11%2f2024&ps=10&ito=1&q=&bs=1&pbh=1&bhor=1&pmb=1&g=1&st=1&sr=1 Not all bills rejected were done purely on ideological grounds, either. I personally think the housing bill fell far short of meeting any aim apart from keeping asset managers under Costello rich... I wouldn't have supported it, either as the economics of direct investment in housing would have reaped far more back into the economy than using a $10bn fund to support housing off the profits of the funds, which had to have their asset management fees deducted first. Of course, when you control a media organisation, you can write the narrative so everyone tings the Greens were thwarting genuine efforts to relieve the housing crisis. I call that BS. But you can't deny, a lot of government sponsored bills were frustrated in the senate. Maybe Albo doesn't want to call an early electon - he has so far said it is not happening, and to then call one will even weaken his position further. So, maybe he was hankering for a double dissolution.

Yes, this is true; most notably the public housing fund being one of them. However, when you delived into the detail of the proposal, it should have been sunk as it is never going to realise its aims. Of course, something is better than nothing. However, this is all part and parcel of the political process in Australia and has been for a long time. It has been rare in modern political times that a political party has held the majority in both chambers to ease through the regulatoy agenda. Whilst I am sure there have been previous governments that have rammed through legislation at the last minute, I can't recall the same magnitude - but accept that may come down to reporting. The reality is Albo has made himself an easy target for the press to get eyeballs and they are taking advantage of it. A lot of the laws are perfunctory and procedural such as tidying up wording or replacing the "Queen" with the Mornarch or some such term. However, there are a couple that warrant a full and fair debate as well as adequate consultation before passing; the laws of unintended consequences may prevail in these situations. For example (although I admit, I have yet to read ther changes yet): The ban on social media for under 16s can cause as much metnal health issues as it solves. For example, it could isolate kids that are in more rural areas; it could push them to the dark web, which should be banned for everyone, but will be where they see a lot worse than on Facebook or Youtube, or even X; it could drive them to porn, etc. Not well thought out laws can cause more probloems than they solve. The changes to immigration laws dealing with refugees, at least by this report, would probably even make SFM cringe: https://www.theage.com.au/politics/federal/trump-would-love-these-terrifying-laws-why-are-we-passing-them-without-proper-debate-20241128-p5ku9e.html. Surely the minimum guarantee of deportation to a safe country should be thought of. Would we want to send people to likely mistreatment of their death? Also telling is what he didn't want to put through - such as the establishment of a federal environmental protection agency with teeth, and an independent environmental data collection agency to allow better decision making on more data. I think he has unwittingly set himself up a showdown with Plibersek and this seemed to have at least cross-bench if not cross party support, as well as was well consulted according to reports.

Let's play the ball and not the man.. With all due respect, Nev proffers up an opinion based on reported facts. Because he doesn't blindly accept what he reads and points out why, based on other reported facts which are omitted from the general news on this provides a fuller picture.. this is a positive IMHO.

Seriously, it isn't me who is getting worked up over this.. we can all express feelings.. but let's have a convo about things because life isn't black and white.. You can still disapprove..

Again.. this is just a beat up.. place of birth? I don't recall ever putting hospital down. Usually it's Melbourne. Occasionally Footscray, never Footscray hospital. Seriously, why whip oneself into a frenzy? Life is too short to be angry over nothing

To quote you: That is false. The government does not have the legal authority to deny the right. If they denied the right, they would be overulling the law and is that ones definition of good government? In a country like Australia, it would waste taxpayers' money as such an overulling would go to the High Court and be promptly thown out. The claim is the Victorian government are bad because they are not yielding to public pressure - not that the mother is bad and should not have a baby and quie frankly it is biased and not based on fact.

There is clearly some nefarious context to that one

This is a legal process and the government is right not to interfere without requisite legal process. Otherwise you're down the slippery slope of populist dictators . [Edit]The only non sensational media coverage I found was here: https://www.abc.net.au/listen/programs/melbourne-mornings/prisoner-released-for-ivf-has-health-rights/104657608 Admittedly not any real depth It is not correct to say the outcries were overruled by the government; they don't have the legal authority to do so.

Well you could argue his bellicose ways are already having a positive impact for Americans. Of course it isn't anything concrete yet but Europe is looking to take the view if you can't beat em, join em Buy American to avoid Trump trade war, says Christine Lagarde - https://on.ft.com/4fKSvb3 via @FT Lagarde asks how does it make America great again if world GDP falls. Who in the US cares.. as long as US GDP increases

Wheel of fortune

Hmm a ppl can be earned in 40 with 20 solo.. Nit sure there is merit in 100 hrs learning to drive.. it doesn't knock the testosterone out of young male drivers for example

I don't inherently disagree with this. Trump is not one for diplomacy nor one for worrying about wider impacts. In his last term, depending on where one stands he did do some good things. For example most European/NATO nations are now either spending ir have a plan implemented to spend 2% of GDP on defence and that was before Putin's invasion of Ukraine. He managed to start the ball rolling on normalising relations between Arab states and Israel - and that is no mean feat. I am not sure of his wisdom of pulling out of the Iran deal.. have to do more research, but it's fair to say Iran appears to have been a nefarious actor while the US was in the deal. Looking at the Trumpometre, some of his policies would accord well with most here, albeit not successful, or a cynic may say, never intended. The lobbying bans, controlling immigration, health saving account, free access to the drug market, 550bn infra fund (spund a little like the inflation reduction act), no cuts to social security, no cuts to medicaid, expand mental health programs, guaranteed 6 weeks holiday, expand economy by 4% a year, etc; I could go on I also think the idea of DOGE is a good one.. in terms of improving efficiency.. not sure I agree with the proposed execution of the idea. Of course in his previous term some was blocked by a Congress and then senate that was held by the opposition, some was probably never intended, and some was probably incompetence.. sounds like any other government to me He is transactional and a bully. He will get some good things done, but will it outweigh the bad and the things he breaks on the way?

Jee, you guys would hate it over here.. dogs rule, but most are well behaved.. Pubs, some restaurants, camping: many allow dogs and they are more often better behaved than humans I intend to bring my cocker to Aus.. but he may be more yappy about being prohibited from the pub

Jee, Chad Gilchrist has aged :-)

David Letterman

Hah! Look at the blowouts of the previous 13 years before Labor got in. $5bn of a 734bn total spend is peanuts Short memories

So do I.. but how many do? My point is most people only use handbrakes when parking or in a manual, for a hill start. For the latter, an electronic hand brake is better anyway.. for the former, there's no real difference.