|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Sept 21, 2012 9:31:38 GMT 10
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Sept 21, 2012 9:41:07 GMT 10
Damn. And me technically being a maths graduate and all (ok, I went on and did some other stuff after that, but it's still embarrassing)
That's not 6 red stripes, it's 5 red stripes.
In my defence I was actually imagining two white stripes at the edge, but that's not how it works. To quote the simpsons:
"Six white stripes, seven red stripes, and a whoooole lotta stars"
(yes, that is actually how I remember the US flag).
So actually it's 4 colonies missing. My golly - that would have made the independence thing even more difficult.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Sept 22, 2012 7:56:28 GMT 10
Righto. So it's gloves off, then? Bolt, this morning: Gillard wants to go personal? Let’s discuss EmersonLast weekend, The Australian rightly warned Labor to back off its vile smear campaign - because two could play at that:After unsuccessfully adopting a strategy of smear against Campbell Newman in the Queensland election, Labor needs to be careful. So far, Ms Gillard’s personal past has been quarantined from public scrutiny. In the slush fund affair, her relationship with a married man was central. And another such relationship has crossed into her own frontbench ranks, blurring the professional and personal. Based on Labor’s public comments and private urgings this week, it could hardly complain if the opposition chose to explore these issues. Last night:CONCERNS are growing within the Gillard government that the strategy of attacks on Tony Abbott’s personal life will backfire against Labor.
The tension over personal attacks between the leaders broke out in a debate last night between Trade Minister Craig Emerson and Coalition health spokesman Peter Dutton on ABC 1’s Lateline program.
After Dr Emerson had accused the Opposition Leader of being thin-skinned over claims he had violently intimidated a political opponent in his university days, Mr Dutton responded with allusions to the relationship Dr Emerson once had with Julia Gillard.
”Craig has obviously been very close to the Prime Minister and he’s a defender of his leader and I understand that,” Mr Dutton said.
“It’s called loyalty,” Dr Emerson responded.
“Well, it obviously goes beyond that,” Mr Dutton said.
“What do you mean by that, Peter?” Dr Emerson asked.
Mr Dutton did not respond…
Dr Emerson and Ms Gillard had a two-year relationship from 2002. Same issue at play - attitudes to women. Especially, in this case, to other married women. And, unlike Abbott, Gillard can’t say that she was just 19 at the time. I think The Oz has made good on its threat. Which was a bit stupid, because things did actually go quiet after it was issued. There's no point making demands if nobody expects you to keep your side of the deal, guys. Bolta links to this article (google the title) Gloves off in fiery exchange, despite fears on personal attacksRather than simply link to the lateline transcript ... www.abc.net.au/lateline/content/2012/s3595788.htmCRAIG EMERSON: Let me finish, let me finish for a moment. Peter, for you to say that Tony Abbott is some sort of shrinking violet, he's just a lovely man, and he spent two years vilifying and denigrating the Prime Minister, and when there's the slightest bit of criticism, you know, you all go, "Oh my God, what's happening to poor Tony!" And you get both Julie Bishop and Christopher Pyne out, with rehearsed lines - you talk about lines! - saying that "Tony Abbott I know is dot-dot-dot" insert detail. It's absurd. And it's hypocritical and it's pathetic. ... can't imagine why. Once again, NEWS is engaged in a coordinated smear against the PM, centered on her personal life. And that after crying foul for getting smacked down the last time and issuing threats about what would happen if anyone tried it on tony abbott. These guys aren't even pretending.
|
|
|
Post by Matthew Of Canberra on Sept 22, 2012 10:37:52 GMT 10
Another slippery-slope argument. This time it's about churches coming "under intense pressure", whatever that means (are churches forced to marry anybody at present? Is there any precedent at all?) www.theaustralian.com.au/opinion/columnists/no-vote-fires-the-opening-salvo-in-the-long-cultural-conflict-over-same-sex-marriage/story-e6frg74x-1226479115312The proposal is to strip from the law the idea of marriage as a union between "a man and a woman" and substitute "two people". This means the removal of concepts of motherhood and fatherhood from law, governance and administration in favour of parenthood. Once enshrined in law, the education systems from primary schools upwards will teach your children the ideology of marriage equality, namely equality of homosexual and heterosexual unions, as the foundation for cultural norms, and a philosophy of family that is dictated by constantly evolving social behaviour and fashions. So much terror about the future. I wonder how we've made it this far, what with all the reforms that were supposed to bring down civilisation before now. Once the state authorises same-sex marriage then religions will come under intense pressure and another campaign based on the further application of marriage equality will begin. Looking at the passions of the same-sex movement, can this be doubted? At that point the ideology of marriage equality runs into direct conflict with the idea of religious freedom. Something will have to give. The point is this debate has many twists and turns ahead. I wonder if the real terror there isn't that churches will be forced to marry gay couples, or that they'll just go ahead and decide to do it themselves? Get a grip, people.
|
|
|
Post by angra on Sept 22, 2012 10:47:39 GMT 10
MoC - "The Church" hasn't done much of a job of 'preserving traditional family values' if the recent sex abuse allegations documented in the Hunter region and Victoria are anything to go by. Close to 2,000 cases from just two areas. Multiply this nationwide and you could be inclined to the view that the Churches have been involved in a concerted attempt over many years to actively undermine said 'traditional family values.'
|
|
|
Post by angra on Sept 22, 2012 11:51:16 GMT 10
British headline (Private Eye) -
Totally Naked Royal Exposed: Richard III found in Leicester car park
|
|