Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index
 The RulesThe Rules FAQFAQ
   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   CalendarCalendar   SearchSearch 
Log inLog in RegisterRegister
 
Plebiscite on gay marriage. Why and why not?

Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None

Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern
 
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 57, 58, 59, 60, 61  Next
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
regan is true fullback 



Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:00 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
So it seems you don’t have a source other than yourself, then. Did you just make it up ?


Worlds richest woman my friend, and like Rupert and Kerry, she worked bugger all to get it. 86 billion pounds, not to mention all the money this country has wasted on this nonsense, remember the mountain of butter. Like you, Angry of Mayfair and Brexit, it is a monument to something that no longer exists except in your imagination, the British Empire.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Oxford, England

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:12 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

^ I see. So you do not have a source. It’s scarcely worth arguing with someone who only asserts things without any facts, but of course the British monarchy preceded the British Empire by about 700 years. It’s fine to be a republican, of course, but like anything else, it should be argued for with reason and logic, not arm-waving.
_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
think positive Libra

Side By Side


Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:12 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Wokko wrote:
luvdids wrote:
Wokko wrote:
Result and margin exactly what I thought it would be. Should be done quickly through parliament because the coalition really want this issue gone before the next election. Don't really care about the issue, there was already legal equality so it was all just semantics really. Not like the gay community are known for adherence to life long monogamy. I'm sure the legal profession will be cheering this result more than anyone.

What next for the progressive mob though? With that issue put to bed the rent a crowd are going to need something else to rally around.


Because the hetero community is? Shocked


Maybe not as much as in the past, or as much as people try to but we've got nothing on the homosexual community when it comes to dismissing monogamy.

"A classic, large-scale study by Bell and Weinberg conducted during the 1970s and published by the Kinsey Institute found that forty-three percent (43%) of white male homosexuals had had sex with 500 or more partners, and twenty-eight percent (28%) had had sex with 1,000 or more partners. Seventy-nine percent (79%) said that more than half of their sexual partners had been strangers. In 1985, Pollack found that gay men averaged “several dozen partners a year” and “some hundreds in a lifetime” with “tremendous promiscuity.” In their 1997 study of the sexual profiles of 2,583 older homosexuals published in the Journal of Sex Research, Paul Van de Ven, et al., found that “the modal range for number of sexual partners was 101-500.” In addition, 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent had between 501 and 1,000 partners. A further 10.2 percent to 15.7 percent reported having had more than one thousand lifetime sexual partners."

Not too many heterosexual men could get to those numbers even if they really, really tried to (and I've known more than a few who really, really try) Laughing
WTF!!!
Well at least you put me off getting miffed about the British Empire comments!
I bet a few of those guys used the expression **** me dead! That’s mind boggling!

_________________
You never look good trying to make someone else look bad. Disrespecting & insulting other to prove your point just shows how shaky your own position is.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
regan is true fullback 



Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 7:50 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Fortune Queen Elizabeth: A Look at 90 Years of Vast Wealth and Perks
it’s good to be the queen.
The Queen is estimated to have a personal net worth of about $425 million, according to Bloomberg. That includes the $65 million Sandringham House and $140 million Balmoral Castle.
But that’s what she inherited. As monarch, the true windfall for her and her family comes in vast amounts of property kept in trust for her which generate significant income. Last year her 15% share of the income was valued at approximately $54.5 million.
The trust is called the Crown Estate and includes the Crown Jewels and Buckingham Palace. But also in the trust are major sections of central London, including nearly all of Regent Street and half the buildings in St. James. The Crown Estate has 263,000 farmed acres; billions of dollars in industrial, office, and retail properties; about half of the U.K.’s shoreline, and almost all the seabed to the 12-mile territorial limit. The total value is about $16.5 billion. Queen Elizabeth and family receive 15% of all the money — $363 million annually — made from the rents, lumber, agricultural products, minerals, renewable energy production, licensing of rights to run undersea cables, and more.But that isn’t the only source of income. The Queen also receives money — $19 million last year — on the income from a parcel of properties totaling 45,549 acres called the Duchy of Lancaster. (Prince Charles takes his pay, more than $27 million, from the income on the Duchy of Cornwall, a separate 53,400 acres.)

Granted, Queen Elizabeth can’t do anything directly with the properties in the Crown Estate or Duchy of Lancaster. But the trust, and its income, pass on to the next monarch, who would be either her son or grandson.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 8:57 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Wokko wrote:
I wonder if the ALP members from the multicultural Western Sydney electorates who overwhelmingly voted No will vote as their constituents have shown they'd want them to.


As a Fairfax columnist pointed out today, it just goes to show that social conservatives (many of whom oppose multiculturalism) need multiculturalism in order for their views to remain relevant, and that multiculturalism (which most progressives support) might just be the biggest hurdle for social progress. It’s a strange world!

_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:09 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David Marr acknowledges now what a very few of us on the left were arguing from the beginning: for all the hand-wringing about mental health and hate, a public vote in the affirmative was a huge act of validation – and one that could have never been delivered by a mere parliamentary vote. $122 million well spent, perhaps.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/nov/15/ive-fallen-in-love-with-my-country-all-over-again-same-sex-marriage-david-marr

David Marr wrote:
But we passed: the nation gave itself not quite a credit but a good sound pass. And we – the country and its LGBTI community – will never feel the same about ourselves again. Just look at the scoreboard.

...

This was our vote, our verdict. It’s not a gift from above. Canberra stood aside. We did it for ourselves when the politicians lost their nerve.

I’ve fallen in love with my country all over again.

For old men like me this is another step on a once-unimaginable journey. Sex was a crime when I made my first stumbling entry into the gay world. Even when those crimes were wiped from the books, so much complicated shame was left to be negotiated. The business of coming out was endless.

_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Oxford, England

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:19 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

regan is true fullback wrote:
Quote:
Fortune Queen Elizabeth: A Look at 90 Years of Vast Wealth and Perks
it’s good to be the queen.
The Queen is estimated to have a personal net worth of about $425 million, according to Bloomberg. That includes the $65 million Sandringham House and $140 million Balmoral Castle.
But that’s what she inherited. As monarch, the true windfall for her and her family comes in vast amounts of property kept in trust for her which generate significant income. Last year her 15% share of the income was valued at approximately $54.5 million.
The trust is called the Crown Estate and includes the Crown Jewels and Buckingham Palace. But also in the trust are major sections of central London, including nearly all of Regent Street and half the buildings in St. James. The Crown Estate has 263,000 farmed acres; billions of dollars in industrial, office, and retail properties; about half of the U.K.’s shoreline, and almost all the seabed to the 12-mile territorial limit. The total value is about $16.5 billion. Queen Elizabeth and family receive 15% of all the money — $363 million annually — made from the rents, lumber, agricultural products, minerals, renewable energy production, licensing of rights to run undersea cables, and more.But that isn’t the only source of income. The Queen also receives money — $19 million last year — on the income from a parcel of properties totaling 45,549 acres called the Duchy of Lancaster. (Prince Charles takes his pay, more than $27 million, from the income on the Duchy of Cornwall, a separate 53,400 acres.)

Granted, Queen Elizabeth can’t do anything directly with the properties in the Crown Estate or Duchy of Lancaster. But the trust, and its income, pass on to the next monarch, who would be either her son or grandson.


So nothing like £86 Bil. And if you are unable to distinguish between the Crown as an institution and the monarch, then you are probably not well-placed to understand why it matters, and why it has underpinned one of the freest countries in the world for over three centuries - as well as your own, which inherited the constitutional arrangements that have made Australia so blessed and so free. I know this is not fashionable, but before you tear something down, it is best to understand it first.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!


Last edited by Mugwump on Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:34 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Oxford, England

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:30 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Wokko wrote:
I wonder if the ALP members from the multicultural Western Sydney electorates who overwhelmingly voted No will vote as their constituents have shown they'd want them to.


As a Fairfax columnist pointed out today, it just goes to show that social conservatives (many of whom oppose multiculturalism) need multiculturalism in order for their views to remain relevant, and that multiculturalism (which most progressives support) might just be the biggest hurdle for social progress. It’s a strange world!


Don't be too smug, David. As the liberal experiment leads to ever more severe social breakdown, as I am confident it will in time, you may yet find that our country recovers its understanding of what really matters - and the hope for shared meaning, for real cultural depth and solidarity may become "relevant" again. All assuming, of course, it has not fallen, by then, totally under the empire of more realistic and clear-eyed nations such as China. There is no social conservatism in multiculturalism - only a babel of segmented solitudes.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!


Last edited by Mugwump on Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:43 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
regan is true fullback 



Joined: 27 Dec 2002
Location: Granville. nsw

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 9:41 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

no i think that 16 billion plus all the other expenses is in the ballpark for 86 billion overall. Whether 16 billion or 86 billion, which i believe is a conservative figure it is an an obscene amount of money for a country that can't afford to feed or house it's people. As for the stability, apart from 5 years 1939 to 45 not much. Wars in America France Scotland Africa Argentina Ireland Palestine etc etc.

The empire is over, I suggest you join it.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Oxford, England

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:05 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

regan is true fullback wrote:
no i think that 16 billion plus all the other expenses is in the ballpark for 86 billion overall. Whether 16 billion or 86 billion, which i believe is a conservative figure it is an an obscene amount of money for a country that can't afford to feed or house it's people. As for the stability, apart from 5 years 1939 to 45 not much. Wars in America France Scotland Africa Argentina Ireland Palestine etc etc.

The empire is over, I suggest you join it.


16 billion... 86 billion - what's 70 billion here or there ? Small change, really.

The 16 billion is also, as your own reference makes abundantly clear, completely irrelevant. The Royal Family receive 15% of the revenues from it, and they are not at liberty to dispose of it. They also spend most of it maintaining the monarchy itself, which is a constitutional institution (the level of expense is why, according to your source, HM's personal wealth at the age of 90 is merely 120% of her annual income). If you had a bank account that paid you only 15% of the interest, and had its capital quarantined beyond your use, and you had to maintain the monarchy with it, I doubt you would consider you owned it. The other 85% of the revenues, of course, are accessed by HM Treasury as public funds.

It is fine to hold an opinion against the monarchy. it is wrong to hold such opinions on the basis of falsehoods and deliberate misrepresentation.

As for the British Empire silliness, it would be best if you learned some history before you joined the republican cause. If you have heard of Bosworth, then you know that the British monarchy long predates the Empire. Republicanism deserves better than such schoolyard taunts.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:17 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

Mugwump wrote:
David wrote:
Wokko wrote:
I wonder if the ALP members from the multicultural Western Sydney electorates who overwhelmingly voted No will vote as their constituents have shown they'd want them to.


As a Fairfax columnist pointed out today, it just goes to show that social conservatives (many of whom oppose multiculturalism) need multiculturalism in order for their views to remain relevant, and that multiculturalism (which most progressives support) might just be the biggest hurdle for social progress. It’s a strange world!


Don't be too smug, David. As the liberal experiment leads to ever more severe social breakdown, as I am confident it will in time, you may yet find that our country recovers its understanding of what really matters - and the hope for shared meaning, for real cultural depth and solidarity may become "relevant" again. All assuming, of course, it has not fallen, by then, totally under the empire of more realistic and clear-eyed nations such as China. There is no social conservatism in multiculturalism - only a babel of segmented solitudes.


I’m really not being smug, just pointing out an interesting irony – and one that ultimately bites leftists as hard as anybody. It just seems increasingly obvious to me that the only hope for a Judeo-Christian-influenced future in Australia lies with (mostly Asian and African) immigrants. And the flip side of that is that migrant communities (Christians, Muslims, Chinese immigrants and so on) will, to a certain extent, contribute to a more socially conservative country – a predicament for progressives who support both increased immigration and socially liberal causes such as gay rights and feminism (although, ultimately, today’s result perhaps shows that we can have our cake and eat it too).

Of course, this is simply one of the necessary consequences of pluralism – a broad variety of views jostling in the public space – and there are many substantial benefits to multiculturalism such as economic growth, a more worldly and accepting populace and the ongoing development of a more globally focused Australia. But there are contradictions and paradoxes on both sides of politics not far under the surface, and I find that interesting.

_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Mugwump 



Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Oxford, England

PostPosted: Wed Nov 15, 2017 10:40 pm
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
Mugwump wrote:
David wrote:
Wokko wrote:
I wonder if the ALP members from the multicultural Western Sydney electorates who overwhelmingly voted No will vote as their constituents have shown they'd want them to.


As a Fairfax columnist pointed out today, it just goes to show that social conservatives (many of whom oppose multiculturalism) need multiculturalism in order for their views to remain relevant, and that multiculturalism (which most progressives support) might just be the biggest hurdle for social progress. It’s a strange world!


Don't be too smug, David. As the liberal experiment leads to ever more severe social breakdown, as I am confident it will in time, you may yet find that our country recovers its understanding of what really matters - and the hope for shared meaning, for real cultural depth and solidarity may become "relevant" again. All assuming, of course, it has not fallen, by then, totally under the empire of more realistic and clear-eyed nations such as China. There is no social conservatism in multiculturalism - only a babel of segmented solitudes.


I’m really not being smug, just pointing out an interesting irony – and one that ultimately bites leftists as hard as anybody. It just seems increasingly obvious to me that the only hope for a Judeo-Christian-influenced future in Australia lies with (mostly Asian and African) immigrants. And the flip side of that is that migrant communities (Christians, Muslims, Chinese immigrants and so on) will, to a certain extent, contribute to a more socially conservative country – a predicament for progressives who support both increased immigration and socially liberal causes such as gay rights and feminism. Of course, this is simply one of the necessary consequences of pluralism – a broad variety of views jostling in the public space – and there are many substantial benefits to multiculturalism such as economic growth, a more worldly and accepting populace and the ongoing development of a more globally focused Australia. But there are contradictions and paradoxes on both sides of politics not far under the surface, and I find that interesting.


Fair enough, thanks for clarifying. I arced up slightly at the implication that social conservatism was sliding into “irrelevance” - which is probably because it is ! This point is often used by those who want to portray an alternative idea not as right or wrong, but as simply not worth engaging with.

Your point about multiculturalism is fair as expressed above. One of the things I dislike about multiculturalism is how opposed it is to real, gritty, honest diversity. The more mass immigration accelerates, the more every country slowly comes to resemble one another. As best I can tell, Paris in the 1950s was like another world to London - the Paris of Piaf, of Maigret, of De Gaulle, Camus, Malraux etc. Now, it is much like any other big city - it has a unique signature in architecture, but otherwise the same damn chain stores and tourists, the same globalized intellectual culture, miniature politicians, and the same low-level sense of crime and racial tension. Ditto Rome. The places in Europe which are most worth visiting are those which are too poor to have bought into the new global “culture”, or those who have very recent memories of living under the hegemony of another, and so retain a fierce independence. Poland, Lithuania, Austria, Hungary are all engaged in this desire to maintain their national difference, because they know what it feels like to be subsumed.

_________________
Two more flags before I die!
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
David Libra

Reel around the fountain


Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Anywhere, I don't care I don't care I don't care

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 12:43 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

While there's unquestionably crossover between the two, what you're describing sounds a lot more like globalisation than multiculturalism. Interesting, though, that one has been generally frowned upon by progressives while the other has been championed – perhaps it's as simple as how one sees the culture in question (e.g. as dominant or marginalised), which would be a frighteningly simplistic dichotomy if so.
_________________
Past the pub that wrecks your body, and the church, all they want is your money; the Queen is dead, boys, and it's so lonely on a limb...
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail MSN Messenger  
Culprit Cancer



Joined: 06 Feb 2003
Location: Port Melbourne

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:41 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

Back on to the topic. The NO campaigners thought they would win and win comfortably, especially running the Abbott style negative campaign. As soon as they realised that wasn't going to be the case they started pushing for caveats on everything. They love democracy until they get smashed and now say they deserve a say as 4 million people voted NO. I have witnessed Governments win elections by a smaller margin and boast that they have been given a Mandate for change.

I have said all along that everyone has the right to be miserable in marriage.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website  
stui magpie 

suge min pikk


Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: Where ever i go, there I am

PostPosted: Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:34 am
Post subject: Reply with quote

David wrote:
David Marr acknowledges now what a very few of us on the left were arguing from the beginning: for all the hand-wringing about mental health and hate, a public vote in the affirmative was a huge act of validation – and one that could have never been delivered by a mere parliamentary vote. $122 million well spent, perhaps.


Not that interested in marr, but I agree. I think it was money well spent, it's a clear mandate.

_________________
I'd like to apologise to anyone I haven't offended yet. Be patient, I'm working through a list. You're entitled to your own opinion, but if it disagrees with mine, it's wrong.
Back to top  
View user's profile Send private message  
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Nick's Collingwood Bulletin Board Forum Index -> Victoria Park Tavern All times are GMT + 10 Hours

Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 57, 58, 59, 60, 61  Next
Page 58 of 61   

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum



Privacy Policy

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group