So, how did Australia manage to elect such a horrible asshole right after her, again? Seems like such an abrupt swing...
1) She might have been a woman but she was not a terribly good leader.
2) There are a lot of stupid xenophobic bogans here that are easy to trick with 3 word slogans.
3) Abbott, as much as I hate the man, is an amazing mud slinger.
Edit: 4) Labor had 2 terms in office and their power sharing deal with The Greens alienated many of their voters who felt like Labor was being taken for a ride by the Greens. Which they were, much to my delight.
Thankfully now that he's in power it's obvious to most that he's got as much ability at governing as I have ability at being civil to the people I hate. Sadly, the bogans still don't see it and they see him as a champion because his brutal, illegal refugee policy is "working" (by which he means the boats aren't arriving here because they're being towed back to Indonesia) and he's getting rid of the carbon tax to replace it with something he calls "direct action".. like... planting trees. This is while he's trying to add a large amount of old growth forest to the areas allowed to be logged. All experts agree that his nonsense direct bullshit plan will not achieve the legislated reductions target, but the drooling bogan rednecks have all been sold the idea that carbon tax = bad because it's a tax that has no effect on world temperature but is detrimental to their back pocket (despite the fact that low and middle incomers were receiving tax breaks to more than make up for any increases in cost of living as a result of the tax).
TLDR; There are a lot of stupid people here and day by day a conservative cleansing is looking like the only way we're gonna fix it. Or wait 3 years, by which stage we'll look something like a larger, more ignorant version of Texas.
Thank you for saying everything I was going to say, and sparing me the effort
ooohhhh... I think you vastly underestimate just how ignorant Texas is my friend.
Go to twitter and type in #auspol (the hastag for anything about Australian Political discussion). Read some of the tweets - particularly from coalition supporters - and see if you still think Texas has the ignorance market cornered. I troll rednecks on there for sport.
@doctorow @beschizza any chance you could post this petition I just found? It's a petition to stop the sale or lease of the vessels the oz govt is using to tow back the boats. It's a UK company so brits are more important than aussies on this one.
I can't figure out if this video is completely missing the point, or profoundly respectful. I suppose the same could be said for any liturgy.
Are they going to do a similar song based on her homophobia?
Gillard was and is staunchly opposed to same-sex marriage (refusing to even let it be voted on in parliament even while neighboring New Zealand was approving it). To top it all off, she used her "feminism" as a reason for being opposed to it while at the same time saying she believes in the "traditional definition of marriage." (Ms. Gillard is in long term non-marriage partnership but also believes that marriage is between a man and a woman. Evidently, in her mind, heterosexuals get to make that choice but same-sex couples don't.)
She may not be lectured to on sexism and misogyny but perhaps she should be lectured on duplicity and hypocrisy.
I always took Gillard's opposition to same sex marriage to be an act of popularism, rather than motivated by her own convictions (can't let personal convictions get in the way of being a politician can we, unless those convictions are of the far-right variety, a la our PM).
It would be nice if it were that easy. But Gillard was asked about this as recently as last October (well after she had resigned as PM).
As best I can figure her "logic," it goes something like this: she rejects marriage because she sees it as a patriarchal institution because women dress up in white to imitate virginity and are given away by men, etc. (never mind the fact that there is no law saying she has to do any of those things) but she made the CHOICE not to involve herself in that institution. And since she views it as anachronistic and patriarchal, she's actively using her beliefs to deny that choice to same-sex couples who might want to make a different CHOICE.
But it doesn't stop there. When Gillard was PM, she said, "I believe in the traditional definition of marriage." Huh?? So, it's patriarchal and anachronistic, but that tradition now needs to be protected from gay people?
Finally, in an interview with CNN from last November (again after she left office), she said, “I recognise that I had perhaps an eccentric view in some ways. I reasoned my way through to my own position through my own life experiences. And I didn’t want to impose it on anyone else.” Except that she did. Her public policy position on this was to deny same-sex couples the right to make that CHOICE for themselves because of her own beliefs that she rejected marriage but at the same time believed in the "traditional definition" of it..
So, she was letting her own convictions about marriage dictate what the public policy was rather than the popularism. BTW, an August 2013 poll by Fairfax Media and Nielsen Polling found that 65% favored making same-sex marriage legal.
Thanks for your interest in my music Cory!
This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.