The News Thread

[CiG]

Not for that specifically of course, but as a people we have a tendency to increase the size of the government rather than minimize it. We don't even have a party that pretends to want to minimize the state lol.

The Greens push the boundaries of sane political discourse and then Labour moves out to meet them, being too cowardly to do the pushing themselves but more dangerously do the normalizing.

 

[Slammed]

Yeah that's true enough. No idea if other countries are like it but we do tend to fatten the top end while the workers at the coal face get screwed. So many government workers put on temp contracts sacked after 4 months, then they go through the re-hire, re- train, process 3 months later, only to get rid of them again come EFOY. Meanwhile the numbers of managers increase and the work that actually gets done drops.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

When you say that it's good that gender is removed and hopefully birth certificates eventually go too that's contrarian. They're not trying to get rid of birth certificates, they're trying to manipulate birth certificates to benefit the trans community. Birth certificates are one of the few legal ways that a trans person can validate their identity, they don't have the same goals as you do.

It's contrarian because you're agreeing with something even though it's nothing to do with what you want, but just some kind of attack on something you dislike.

Then what exactly are the "serious consequences" alluded to in your link?

"Enemy of my enemy is my friend" is not contrarian, it's practical, and I don't really have anything against trans rights on their own merits (meaning it is something I want; I don't want any legal recognition of gender or sex). The more nebulous that the legal recognition of aspects of identity become, the sooner we can come to ending both identity and legal privilege entirely and undo the despicable legacy of the Title IX legislation here.

 

[CiG]

The article doesn't specify anything I would call serious consequences I just quoted that because that's the name of the article, but iirc one of the government's complaints is that no other state has done this and it would cause issues on a national level for Tasmanians moving around the rest of Australia, also that there has been no public consultation on such a change.

For me my primary concern is that this activism will lead to further bloating of the bureaucracy that runs amok in this country. I wish we had a proper Libertarian Party here just to balance some of this insane statism. I have no passionate views on birth certificates themselves and would actually probably more likely side with you on this, but I wouldn't throw my lot in with people who aren't trying to abolish it, but just change it in ways that actually creates more activity around it than less.

The article says at 18 you can add your gender, or at 16 accompanied by a guardian. Are we really going to have a new thing where hundreds of thousands of people go in to alter their birth certificate? We can't even handle the DMV without becoming a clusterfuck of state incompetence.

 

[Slammed]

I think you're putting more weight in it than it's worth. Green's policies like this rarely get up even if the Labor party are supporting it just so the Greens preference them in May. Such a policy would need bi-partisan support and the Libs are too backwards to go for it whether they are in power or out on their useless arses like the numbers suggest.

Most Greens policies are just like policies from Palmer, Hansen, Getup, the Shooters and the Motoring enthusiasts. Made in a quiet time of news to create headlines and remind people they still exist. Tassie might be moving ahead of the mainland with Greens support but it's still far from allowing a Greens policy simply to happen because it's what some twat from the Greens told a newspaper.

 

[CiG]

Progress steamrolls onward. I might be putting more weight in this than is necessary, but it's already happening in parts of Canada and we aren't that different politically from them.

 

[Slammed]

Each to their own but I think it's just hot air politics from a party who are way out of touch and just trying to convince people they are relevant. With parliament on holidays we are going to get a whole bunch of this shit coming through over the next two months. The motoring party will advocate for higher speed limits. The shooters and fishers for the right to shoot lobsters in the tanks of Chinese restaurants, Hasen will advocate for equal rights for redheads and Palmer will advocate for everyone to remember he's still in politics. Each one of them will claim to have a good reason for their fuckwit new idea and they will also have an 'expert' with letters after their name supporting the idea. As far as I'm concerned this is just the Greens firing the first shot. I'd like to be proven wrong and therefore see the Greens or one of the smaller parties propose something that gets somewhere but I doubt this is it.

 

[CiG]

What the Greens are proposing isn't really so obscure anymore, with the rise of progressive politics things like this will soon be what energizes Labour, as they're slowly co-opted by SJW-types. I wouldn't really put it alongside the truly random niche shit you mentioned.

Though I agree that we do get the wild stuff when they're on holidays lmao.

 

[Slammed]

The idea isn't obscure but the practicality of it is and it's why they do it. In reality such a policy could be easily achieved, it probably wouldn't even create a new job title, but in practice no government could do it without making a balls up of it because of the bureaucracy it would have to go through. Therefore like so many of the other policies these idiots come up with they do it knowing full well it's more about the headline today than actually getting something to happen tomorrow.

 

[The Ozzman]

LOL, TB deleted me from RYM because of the RYM comment I posted from my wall. You get more easily triggered than I do. It's okay, I'll post it again in case people forgot already:

You rage quit at least one more time after that when Deron said he wouldn't delete something that triggered you.

as many times as you've had your mod privileges revoked.

So zero? Doubt that.

You remember that one time you got put in your place for wrongly trying to ban me(got overturned the next day) and you had to apologize to me

Yep. One of my biggest regrets in life is apologizing to you. You got me.

Honestly I have an AK47 (dont know the detailed specs, sorry) that I inherited from my dad, and id say that it should probably be illegal to own a gun like this.

You are a fudd.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

LOL, TB deleted me from RYM because of the RYM comment I posted from my wall. You get more easily triggered than I do. It's okay, I'll post it again in case people forgot already:.

You rage quit at least one more time after that when Deron said he wouldn't delete something that triggered you.

i what? You were removed from my friends list 5 years ago. What i did yesterday was delete that comment from your wall since it was the most recent comment you had and it was from 2016 lmao, which again just goes to show how much of a loser you are.

Secondly, Deron had deleted something i had posted(re faggotgate) and said it wasnt possible for him to undo that delete. Get your facts straight you delusional fat bastard.

Also i heard you got banned for using racial slurs when i was gone and then when you came back you tried arguing with Deron about it

 

[EternalMetal]

You are a fudd.

lol, I didnt know that this was a real pro-tactical slur against the hunter-type gun owner until I googled it. Honestly I really dont have a passionate position on the issue, so go buy any gun you want, I dont really care. Id have to read up on the regulations and licenses required to purchase these kinds of things to give a truly informed opinion on the matter.

 

[TechnicalBarbarity]

... lol @ anyone taking jabs at people who own guns for hunting. Especially coming from the poser types who plays with guns in their basements like him.

 

[The Ozzman]

Yes, I live in the basement of the house I pay a mortgage on. Excellent logic.

You admit that you ragequit because Deron didn't give you what you wanted?

As far as the friends list thing, I didn't pay attention I guess. I only really used that for cataloging purposes and didn't really utilize the forum or social aspect of the site. Same goes for discogs which I switched to sometime last year which is why I haven't really updated RYM in a while.

Owning guns for hunting is fine. If you were as experienced in the gun community as you claim, you would know what 'fudd' implies as a slur. Opinions like 'I own 'X' gun but don't think anyone should really own them' is a fudd statement. If you don't think people should own them, why don't you sell it or have it destroyed then?

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

so
i'm aware that different models of guns look completely different
and i'm also aware that there are these crazy white people who own weirdly bulky glass-door gun-display-cases that hold a huge-ass number of guns
and i'm also aware that some of these specific gun-owners are dudes in their 30s who will never actually fire a gun in their lives even if they live to be 130
but guns are tools
so, for those specific guys, if your gun collection is just for looking at, if you're never actually going to fire a gun in a million years to save your life
just go ahead and throw away all the fucking firing pins already

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

TB in UM GMDS

1. See Posts
2. Roid Rage
3. ????
4. Repeat

 

[Blurry_Dreams]

so then this happened
Trump confides to friends he's concerned about impeachment

 

[Sirjack]

shit! l didn't know this

 

[CiG]

Pat O'Brien has become Florida Man.

 

[EternalMetal]

Opinions like 'I own 'X' gun but don't think anyone should really own them' is a fudd statement. If you don't think people should own them, why don't you sell it or have it destroyed then?

The gun was acquired illegally, but a good friend of ours is in law enforcement and told me that he would be able to buy any gun from me and legitimize it via his position (he is high up the chain enough to do so). Honestly I might do so, since the gun is probably better off in responsible hands who would use it for target practice and entertainment.

I thought about it more, and maybe it is ok for people to be able to own these kind of guns. Still, it seems like firearms almost always escalate situations in the real world, meaning the bigger the weapon, the bigger the conflict. I dont even like killing deer and am not even a hunter anymore (call me a pussy, idgaf), but the weapons in discussion are definitely meant and trained for militarization against humans. I felt remorse shooting and killing deer/fox/groundhog/etc, but id probably have PTSD if I were to ever kill another human being. Ive met tactical fags who havent even killed a squirrel, fox, or deer, but think that 'military shit is cool'. If you don't know the despair of killing, then you don't know what you are stumbling upon, especially when it comes to training to kill other people.

Call me a fudd all you want, but I know what the difference is between a hunting gun and a military weapon is. Honestly I think you are too dumb to fully understand the repercussions. I respect the right of citizens to bear arms, and it isnt anything to take lightly. The dilemma I face looking at my military weapon is probably incomprehensible to you, who looks at "military training" like a hobby.