Freedom of speech
.
Sorry Zen, you are too nice, doesn't have the same effect as when Blowin does it.
ま
Freedom of speech allows final non banned lefty to be equally bullied by right trolls.
Above all laws! Right are free to practice sacred Bullying Religion as is their Right.
Right bullies are strict disciplined Homoerotic...I mean Homophobic! Who can say?
re: Blowin's Video... Pornhub were jealous that YouTube had a flagellation category.
V.I. I have to re-post this. I nominate it as the most memorable post of yours, nay, of anyone's, on Swellnet in living memory.
"Blowin is such a tease with his deleted post, does it all the time, i always want to know what he initially said, you know they would have been pretty good, controversial, honest post because he general doesn't hold back from saying what he thinks.
I do honestly think they are a troll/shit strir, even if not intentionally just because of the timing of them, its like a horror or thriller movie, sometimes suggestion and not what is shown is more effective than showing too much.
Just the presence of his post and fact he deleted it, makes you think, it must have been good, and the mind ticks."
Champagne stuff, V.I.
Bravo!
One of the worst impacts of Trump's Presidency has been the legitimacy it has given to blatant lying. When a US President logs 10,000 outright lies in only slightly more than half his term and, not only remains in power, but still has significant support, then something has gone seriously wrong. And what has gone wrong is not political, it is cultural.
It is easy to believe that laws have an absolute status. Nothing could be further from the truth. Laws are only as good as those who administer them. Politicians can change them. The police can choose to ignore them and judges can re-interpret them. Put a few lies into circulation and the impact on the law can be catastrophic. The case study on this is, of course, Germany in the 1930s.
When lying becomes a convenient tool for gaining votes, deceiving the public or disempowering those with different views, democracy is in deep trouble. The constant repetition of lies establishes them as truth in the minds of those who find them convenient. And these "truths", all too often, merely confirm existing irrational prejudice. So what data from Germany in the 1930s and the US currently shows, is that as lies increase, so do hate crimes against minorities.
In other circumstances these might be merely interesting observations of degenerate cultures but in Australia we are seeing the application of exactly these principles in our current election campaign. Current campaigns by the coalition rely heavily on the repetition of either blatant lies or broad generalisations unsupported by readily available evidence. The most obvious characteristic of this type of campaign is its reliance on slogans and personality over policy.
We are fortunate in this campaign that the distinction is so stark. Labor have avoided both personality and unsubstantiated assertions. Their leader has consistently played down personality and their emphasis through-out the campaign has been on policy. The coalition, in stark contrast, have depended on scare mongering assertions and the projection of positive personality traits by its leader which, given his political history, would have to be considered an unreliable guide to his future behaviour.
Again, the sooner we move away from the two party system the better.
If only we had the political leadership in this country.
New Zealand had referenda regarding their voting system in '92, '93 and again in 2011.
They moved away from preferential voting and chose proportional representation.
Smart move.
I doubt Australians will ever get the chance, and we'll continue the pay the price.
What is it with Bills and spinning shit???...Clinton>Shorten?
"The Australian Electoral Commission (AEC) has responsibility for the regulation of election advertising under the Commonwealth Electoral Act. ... The AEC has no role or responsibility in deciding whether political messages published or broadcast in relation to a federal election are true or untrue."
"Currently, there is no legal requirement for the content of political advertising to be factually correct. Complainants are advised to raise their concerns with the advertiser directly and/or with their local Member of Parliament."
https://adstandards.com.au/products-issues/political-and-election-advert...
Sorry Andy whatever system NZ has it's completely flawed when you end up with someone like Jacinda Ardern.
¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Let's just say we moved away from a two party system, which is basically just a balance between one slight right of centre party, and one slight left of centre party. (which most people vote for because most see it pointless to vote for another party)
What would happen?
All other parties that were realistic options in the mix would either be further left or further right.
All this would do is risk getting a much more left or right government and make politics and society in general more divided.
Whats the trend around the world been of late...are we seeing more left wing or right wing governments elected? especially nationalistic governments.
Maybe you lefties should be careful what you wish for.
.
Thanks if your insulting me instead of giving a well thought out argument against my theory, i can only assume you dont have one?...
You've shown you know not even the first thing.
Why would I make the effort of a reply when you don't even have the decency of engaging with the subject?
All my post are on topic..you took the topic in this direction, not me, you are the one who has used personal insults (deleted) not me.
You said
"Again, the sooner we move away from the two party system the better."
Do you accept that if we did move away from a two party system that the options would either be further left and further right?
Creating even more division and if you had complete swings off government your would get even more problems with consistency moving forward.
Well I like your posts indod. You give a good insight to the average dude who's not overly engaged in politics but is interested and likes to be involved, invaluable info. for the purists I reckon, if only they weren't so tempermental! (not you andym)
I really appreciate andym too, I love his purist perspective...good at pulling into line the delusional extremists (but self assessed moderates - or at least they play down their position to be moderate/middle).
However indod, you do tend to go too black and white with your observations, when there is often much grey to be navigated...
I do think this is fair enough though, as the looney left of the left were getting way looney....pre trump at least...
When andym advocates moving away from a two party system I think he means we need better choices than neo liberal LNP, with a dash of the worst of the culture wars. And neo liberal ALP, with the a large helping of the worst of identity politics ie. two parties offering pretty much more of the same (pandering to their respective donor classes and their lobby groups) whilst offering the voters unsubstantial fairly inconsequential trash to argue over, whilst changing nothing of substance to the actual system.
You view of 'the left' is quite disrespectful at times as you lump all of the worst of it in together for a fairly gratuitous bagging. Which, as I said, is quite fair enough considering the recent road to this unhealthy place.
From andym's purist perspective (Im assuming) a more left push against the current neo- liberal doctrine would mean government being more proactive in fostering and preserving essential services (as it once did) and having policies that address real disadvantage (as it once did).
It would also mean more environmental protections, rather than the lip service 'studies' and obligitory stamping that now seems to be MO from both major parties. And, it would involve holding the companies and their practices to much more accountability regarding the actual public long term good than is now the case - this refers to banking, privatisation, and services generally as much as environment.
Moving away from a two party system doesn't neccesarily mean pandering to the extremes (unless people vote that way). It just means like minded blocks cooperating, building real power to keep the majors accountable as the aussie democrats once did when their endeavour was to '...keep the bastards honest'.
I reckon we are slowly moving away from a two party system (thank fuck) as independents are slowly forming blocks to challenge the majors. From my perspective this has only been a positive, however the idealogues get a little uppity and upset when these little coalitions don't go their way, ie. one nation, PUP. I think even these fruit loops have had a positive effect, as they have put real issues on the table that have been ignored for too long and would never have got a hearing otherwise.
Moving away from a two party system to me just means minor parties having more influence, and creating loose coalitions for real power, much like greece, or indonesia even. While these systems may be criticised as not being 'mature democracies' (maybe not greece - bloody ironic if it is) it seems our overly mature democracy that they strive for, has become dysfunctional. Too developed. Too refined, Too much mature. Too ripe. Ripe to the point of being rotten to the core.
Syppo, Indo has no insight there, none whatsoever.
"a two party system, which is basically just a balance between one slight right of centre party, and one slight left of centre party. "
Incorrect.
"All other parties that were realistic options in the mix would either be further left or further right."
Totally incorrect.
"Do you accept that if we did move away from a two party system that the options would either be further left and further right?"
Indo, the opposite has been shown to be true, that's the point of that link below.
Have a listen, challenge your prejudices and then I might spend some time debating it.
https://radio.abc.net.au/programitem/pe9D2jK6YD?play=true
Or, check this out
I listened to it.(gritted my teeth through the first little bit)
What they are talking about doesn't really seem like a move away from a two party system though does it?, it just seems like a system where other parties can get more seats. (i guess at some stage that could become a three or four party thing)
All it seems would happen is every thing would be watered down and it would be harder for policy to get through, so the party that actually gets voted in cant actually do what they need to do.
Personally id just prefer as little interference with the party that is voted in as possible so they can actually fulfil the policy they are voted in on and then have longer terms, so it's not all about trying to get re-elected..
But maybe that would be dangerous too?
Anyway, i personally have no issues with the current system, i don't even really have that much issue with Liberal or labor.
Ive always thought it's a good mix to have a few terms of one then a few terms of another, and that's what keeps some balance.
Anyway as they say, all above my pay grade.
Yeah there're often bits that grate but you gotta look at the big message.
Indo that'd be extremely dangerous if a party had open slather for obvious reasons.
Think of John Howard and Workchoices when the LNP had control of both Houses of Parliament.
Similarly, the way two parties have become entrenched in the U.S., U.K., and Australia is what has lead us to this current low point in faith in political institutions - it's not working, it's not representative and it's quite thoroughly corrupt.
My point of view, and it's a very common view as you might have seen, is that
a) proportional representation more accurately reflects the will of the voters i.e. it's more democratic and
b) having more parties and coalitions working together instead of two dominating giants will mean more debate, more compromise and would lead to more sensible and less radical policies, contrary to what you have previously said.
Considering that we're over a barrel and we're not allowed to change the voting system (how good is our democracy eh?!), the best we can do is to not vote for the majors.
And if you're looking to Dick Smith regarding population, you must have a problem with the current system, it makes no sense to say otherwise.
Digging your posts lately Andy.
Dont always agree with what you're saying but I like the arguments propelling them on.
"My point of view, and it's a very common view as you might have seen, is that
a) proportional representation more accurately reflects the will of the voters i.e. it's more democratic and
b) having more parties and coalitions working together instead of two dominating giants will mean more debate, more compromise and would lead to more sensible and less radical policies, contrary to what you have previously said."
I have to agree with you there andy. I think we are lucky to have a check and balance in the government in the form of the 'Senate', and that it is rightly determined by proportional representation. It is a best case expression of the collective will of the people at any one time. We get what we get and try not to get upset.
Whether we like it ir not,
As for b) that is spot on. The only way forward is through compromise by the elected represntative interests to achieve the best policy outcome.
As for changing the voting system, we could do this by becoming a Republic, but even that option is more corruptable than ours. Getting big money out of politics and increasing transparency would seem a better option for improving our system.
As for 'population', I'm sure theres a thread or 50 where this has been 'discussed' (term loosely applied)
In the meantime,
Go the Minors and Independents indeed.
[news] Folau found guilty of high level breach of contract ...penalty pending
https://www.foxsports.com.au/rugby/folaus-epic-code-of-conduct-hearing-i...
Let's cast our minds back...
A minority government in a real coalition that worked ie got stuff done? Um, when was that again? Went down a treat, I'm sure...especially in the media.
A(nother) hung parliament would be a best case scenario in my opinion.
Of course the media would pretend it's the end of the world.
@Stu - cheers for that, the intent is to provoke thought.
Another thing I find interesting is Australians' general perception of our politics - for decades we've been told we're shit hot, we're beyond reproach, when the actual fact is we're a real political outlier, we're quite backward in a few ways.
Maybe I'll hammer that one tomorrow.
Notes on the last hung parliament:
Julia Gillard was the most effective PM since federation in terms of acts passed per day. Can look at that two ways, either a hung parliament isn't as chaotic as perceived, or Gillard was a superpower at the negotiating table.
The Gillard government also kept the most amount of promises (87%) of all governments since Whitlam, meaning she was largely able to act on her mandate despite minority government.
And like Whitlam, the corporate media attack from the usual suspects, which then filtered down to all media, then the general populace as usual, was above and beyond. Disgraceful period that will be talked about and analysed way down the track. And in which we were all the poorer finally.
Well, not all of us of course. Tones and the Libs, and their enablers and supporters were stoked. Worked out well, hey?
Indo -
You say this -"The best way you can vote to preserve Australia's environment is to vote for a party who's main focus is tackling and bringing to light the issue around unsustainable population growth."
And you reference Dick Smith.
Yet you say this - "Anyway, i personally have no issues with the current system, i don't even really have that much issue with Liberal or labor."
It seems you need to make a choice.
Stu - yeah the idea that pluralism and multi-party coalitions lead to inabilities to pass legislation and make decisions is a furphy.
Only 6 of 35 major democracies (including Australia) have a winner-takes-all style of voting.
The bulk of the "most successful democracies" have a form of proportional representation.
@ Andy
If my main concern was the environment or even just the future of Australia as in quality of life(without money aspect) id most likely be voting some party like sustainable population party. (for example if i was retired, but depends on their view on social issues, i think they are pretty left leaning so id most likely be put out off by that)
However unfortunately my line of work and where i live gets affected by the economy a bit, especially if we went into a recession, so at this point it would be silly for me to vote like that.
Same goes with things like negative gearing on property, in theory im dead against it I think property should be about being your home not an income stream etc, but again much of my work is from people who own holidays houses etc that they rent out, so although i think it good restricting negative gearing on property, from a financial point of view id be silly to support something that could affect my income.
Personally i have trouble choosing who to vote for because, no party fits all my views.
Social issues: id vote liberal i think they get the balance right.
For the economy: id vote liberal i just trust them more in that regard, especially with the climate change issue...especially when Labor have no idea or wont even tell us costings on their policys regarding the issue. (red lights flashing)
What i can get from the government : Id vote labor, im not a high income earner, i don't even try to be (i could work much more and earn much more if I liked), so voting labor im more likely to get some icing on the cake from them.
Environment: id most likely vote Sustainable pollution party as i think thats the big issue for the environment.
Other areas: id vote one nation for the battler and underdog and nationalistic aspect.
If i was voting on personality or just who i trust as a leader, id vote Scomo.
I mean you could say you picked Liberals twice and Scomo, why not vote for them, well i just cant and never have, it would feel like shooting myself in the foot, because they are not going to give me any real handouts like Labor might like raising the tax free threshold or GST free threshold, so id feel like id be taking that chance of a free lunch aspect away from my self.
But I couldn't vote Labor either anymore as when we go into a recession or they open our borders again or some other BS id wish i hasn't voted for them. (plus im not a fan of Shorten)
So ironically and maybe a contradiction although i think the two majors keep things chugging along just fine(or better than it might be) if i dont leave my ballot blank, i will vote below the line and put Greens last then Labor then Liberal and then pick and choose as i feel.
To be honest and expect i will get some shit for this, i might even put One Nation first (never done it before and i dont agree with all of their policy's and strongly disagree with some, i mean anti vaccine nuts drive me crazy and i dont think they would be good for Indonesian-Aussie relations )
But after watching Pauline on TV the other night, it did get me thinking, although she isn't perfect, one thing she is IMHO is genuine, she is real and she is a true battler, she has gone through soo much shit but just keeps fighting, god knows how long she has been in politics now, so i might give her party a little support this time, i guess its like how people voted for Trump?
Plus the foreign media BS trying to bring her down, pisses me off especially seeing it's basically like a government funded media and basically a pro islamic one at that and spending years to try to bring them down, IMHO if after a few years thats the best they can do or find then great.
I also like the thought of voting for the underdog and that shit makes them even more of an underdog.
But honestly end of the day the result wont bother me either way, what happens happens, liberal, labor doesn't really matter, we put up with Abbott so Shorten cant be too much worse.
I actually I only really have two wishes Kerryn Phelps loses her seat and Jacinta price wins her seat, then hopefully one gets less media attention and the other gets more.
Those two things happen and i will be happy.
Well at least your honest Indo owning up to being a hip pocket nerve voter. Ask not what I can do for my country, just tell me what's in it for me!
I generally try not to be selfish but i think there is also times you also need to think of yourself first and what's in it for me.
There you have it - someone who will come right out and say that they don't care about the future of Australia.
"IMHO if after a few years thats the best they can do or find then great."
Are you on drugs? They were consulting with the NRA to pick apart Australia's gun laws.
I don't give a fuck how it happened, they said it and later admitted it. Go into the technicalities all you wont but the motive is laid bare - and you support it.
Don't go there Indo! You will regret it for the rest of your life. You will have to hang your head in shame when the grand-kids find out! Vote informal or tell them you were sick.
Personally it all seems/seemed dodgy.
An undercover journalist sets up a meeting between One Nation and the NRA while posing as the head of Gun Rights Australia
They get some footage of these guys from One nation drunk talking about how they could spend all this money if they had it.
Thats all you get after a few years investigation?
Basically entrapment of some goons drunk and then latter some lame skandal of them drunk at a strip joint? (i mean even Rudd enjoyed the old strip club)
All released off course just before an election, and just happens to be some state funded pro islamic media outlet that would dream of bringing one nation down..
So if they were investigating One nation for years and were doing so because they had some tip off they were doing this or that.
Why did they need to entrap them?
Surely if there was much more happening after a few years you are going to come up wth more than that?
"Personally it all seems/seemed dodgy."
Because it is! Dodgy beyond belief!
"Surely if there was much more happening after a few years you are going to come up wth more than that?"
Exactly!
A bunch of goons from one nation, drunk ones at that! it was hardly shocking or revealing. All those resources. All that time. The perfectly timed release of the stories aligning with our election. Nice try, but that's all you've got?
Whoop de fucking doo
It was a hachet job, a rather underwhelming one. Personally I think they did themselves more damage than gained any political ground. The machine versus the little man and they got fuck all...
So let's say it all happened a bit differently: Rodger Muller was a genuine gun nut, and One Nation got the money, yet were only caught later on after fucking with our political system.
Hypothetical of course, but not improbable. In fact this kind of business goes on all the time. Just Google "lobby group".
You guys would still support One Nation?
Also Sykpan, I know you're desperate to defend One Nation (desperate! desperate! desperate!) but James Ashby isn't "some goon", he's the Mark Textor of the party.
"It was a hachet job, a rather underwhelming one. Personally I think they did themselves more damage than gained any political ground. The machine versus the little man and they got fuck all..."
Hatchet job? It turned out that way, and to be honest I'm glad they exposed those 2 One Nation termites. As for Pauline, ohh poor Pauline....she'll get over it, again.
One thing for sure is that we'll know in a week or so how much 'ground' ON have lost. Expect more tears.
WARNING: THIS MAN VOTES.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA.
"If my main concern was the environment or even just the future of Australia as in quality of life(without money aspect) id most likely be voting some party like sustainable population party. (for example if i was retired, but depends on their view on social issues, i think they are pretty left leaning so id most likely be put out off by that)
However unfortunately my line of work and where i live gets affected by the economy a bit, especially if we went into a recession, so at this point it would be silly for me to vote like that.
Same goes with things like negative gearing on property, in theory im dead against it I think property should be about being your home not an income stream etc, but again much of my work is from people who own holidays houses etc that they rent out, so although i think it good restricting negative gearing on property, from a financial point of view id be silly to support something that could affect my income.
Personally i have trouble choosing who to vote for because, no party fits all my views.
Social issues: id vote liberal i think they get the balance right.
For the economy: id vote liberal i just trust them more in that regard, especially with the climate change issue...especially when Labor have no idea or wont even tell us costings on their policys regarding the issue. (red lights flashing)
What i can get from the government : Id vote labor, im not a high income earner, i don't even try to be (i could work much more and earn much more if I liked), so voting labor im more likely to get some icing on the cake from them.
Environment: id most likely vote Sustainable pollution party as i think thats the big issue for the environment.
Other areas: id vote one nation for the battler and underdog and nationalistic aspect.
If i was voting on personality or just who i trust as a leader, id vote Scomo.
I mean you could say you picked Liberals twice and Scomo, why not vote for them, well i just cant and never have, it would feel like shooting myself in the foot, because they are not going to give me any real handouts like Labor might like raising the tax free threshold or GST free threshold, so id feel like id be taking that chance of a free lunch aspect away from my self.
But I couldn't vote Labor either anymore as when we go into a recession or they open our borders again or some other BS id wish i hasn't voted for them. (plus im not a fan of Shorten)
So ironically and maybe a contradiction although i think the two majors keep things chugging along just fine(or better than it might be) if i dont leave my ballot blank, i will vote below the line and put Greens last then Labor then Liberal and then pick and choose as i feel.
To be honest and expect i will get some shit for this, i might even put One Nation first (never done it before and i dont agree with all of their policy's and strongly disagree with some, i mean anti vaccine nuts drive me crazy and i dont think they would be good for Indonesian-Aussie relations )
But after watching Pauline on TV the other night, it did get me thinking, although she isn't perfect, one thing she is IMHO is genuine, she is real and she is a true battler, she has gone through soo much shit but just keeps fighting, god knows how long she has been in politics now, so i might give her party a little support this time, i guess its like how people voted for Trump?
Plus the foreign media BS trying to bring her down, pisses me off especially seeing it's basically like a government funded media and basically a pro islamic one at that and spending years to try to bring them down, IMHO if after a few years thats the best they can do or find then great.
I also like the thought of voting for the underdog and that shit makes them even more of an underdog.
But honestly end of the day the result wont bother me either way, what happens happens, liberal, labor doesn't really matter, we put up with Abbott so Shorten cant be too much worse.
I actually I only really have two wishes Kerryn Phelps loses her seat and Jacinta price wins her seat, then hopefully one gets less media attention and the other gets more.
Those two things happen and i will be happy."
Media in this country has a lot to answer for.
Hanson .....where do you start
Remember the Asia bogey we were all doomed played straight to the inherit racism that exists on the fringe while blowing the divisive dog whistle, what a dog seriously.
Hanson is honest, BS plays the game to stay on the public tit nothing more.
Anyone shocked about those two mugs in the US need to get out more they are both excrement looking for a blowfly.
If Hanson was any of the positive claims here she would be a force in politics rather than a circus sideshow full of clowns.
"...Hatchet job? It turned out that way, and to be honest I'm glad they exposed those 2 One Nation termites. As for Pauline, ohh poor Pauline....she'll get over it, again.
One thing for sure is that we'll know in a week or so how much 'ground' ON have lost. Expect more tears."
No it didn't just 'turn out that way' at all.
It was a concerted years long $100 s of thousands of dollars effort to build a smear canpaign leading up to an election where ON was getting real traction. An effort from a very large wealthy foreign government media organisation...and yes a muslim one, which undoubtably drove the incentive.
That's very different to getting an unexpected a 'scoop' whilst sniffing around for a story about something else. Very very different...
I'll take some of my first comment back, it will have done real damage to the votes ON would have gained from the voters looking to do a protest vote - a massive cohort in this coming election I would argue.
But in terms of the party faithful, the 'one nation all inners', I don't think it will do much damage at all, quite likely strengthen their resolve. Many ON voters are people who'd float between nationals, shooters and fishers party, LNP, and various other libertarian, small government believers, preppers, farmers, and anti everthing types. You won't lose these dudes with that story. Many of them would support loosening of gun laws, and many would resent foreign/big government/media meddling in our election. This just strengthened their belief.
I can't stand ON, despite what stunet might believe. I'd argue it's your outright hate of ON stunet that's influencing your perspective on this story. Yeh it's damning stuff, but it's not really that surprising that these clowns want to water down our gun laws, as I said, nationals; shooters and fishers; ON; pretty much interchangable. I find your outrage rather confected actually, as I believe changing OZ gunlaws hasn't got a hope in hell of getting up. I'd even say, that if these clowns got even remotely close to just proposing changes to legislation you'd see protests in OZ lke we've never seen before, big time - against it!
It's a total non issue. And the biggest revelation from this whole little debacle....is how delusional and out of touch some ON clowns are with mainstream australia
So a total non issue. A fanciful hypothetical. A good opportunity for the one nation bashers, but a bit of a fizzer for everyone else.
Aljazeera, a foreign government media organisation meddling in australian politics is the real story here.
Exactly......and the NRA sting will mean any hope she had of garnerning any mainstream or even protest votes is gone.
she'll be stuck with her rusted on 9% fringe vote until she carks it.
Indo says he likes what Howard did with gun laws, but now would vote One Nation despite their attempt to dismantle them.
Where's the logic?
And Sypkan, you were positively fizzing with exclamation marks about it a week ago. Couldn't hit Shift 1 often enough
"Excitement?" I asked. "No, emphasis," you replied.
But now it's a fizzer, no emphasis needed apparently. Though I'm sure you'd argue they were required back then.
Because i just believe that it's all basically BS.
Sypkan pretty much summed it all up.
Im considering voting them 1st more because of foreign media meddling in things and just sick of media in general trying to bring them down, id be voting i guess more in spite and the underdog factor.
And because id be running out of options to put first :D
But who knows i might just leave it blank, like i said i dont find it easy to pick a party to vote for.
"...excrement looking for a blowfly."
Strap yourself in!!!!
A view from abroad where One Notion isn't much of a thing. Well, they aren't anyway, but...aah, you know what I mean.
https://beta.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/03/28/nra-is-going-global-...
And Al Jazeera interfering...again.
https://m.betootaadvocate.com/headlines/al-jazeera-sends-undercover-repo...
well...
I haven't gone back and checked (that's facto's department), but I'm pretty sure the emphasis was on the story from aljazeera, that the scoop was a windfall as a result of a larger, different, investigation was bullshit.
I still call bullshit!!!
The actual story, that ON clowns support gun reform, is indeed a fizzer, no real revelation there.
The real story, is that a corrupt, oil rich, middle east government funded media organisation meddled in OZ politics.
But our media is willing to overlook that for their own political agendas. There's another significant story in that one too.... if there's any credible journos left out there...
...be the media...become the media...or some bullshit...
unless it's incovenient of course...then its...give me convenience or give me....
What is freedom of speech?